Evertime Overseas Private Limited VS Union of India

The petitioner argues that he is entitled to a refund under Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act). According to the learned counsel representing the petitioner, the refund claim pertains to goods supplied and falls under the provisions of sub-section 3(b) of Section 16 of the IGST Act.

The counsel for the petitioner asserts that based on the transactions involving the supplied goods, the petitioner is eligible for a refund as per the specified section of the law. This claim for a refund is substantiated by the provisions outlined in Section 16(3)(b) of the IGST Act, which presumably details the criteria and conditions under which such refunds can be claimed.

The petitioner’s contention focuses on the legal entitlement to a refund for the goods supplied, arguing that the stipulations in the IGST Act, particularly Section 16(3)(b), support this entitlement. The submission indicates that there are grounds within the statutory framework of the IGST Act that justify the petitioner’s claim for a refund, and thus, the petitioner seeks to exercise this legal right under the specified section of the Act.

In summary, the petitioner seeks a refund under the IGST Act, specifically invoking the provisions of Section 16(3)(b), arguing that the nature of the goods supplied qualifies for such a refund according to the stipulations of the Act.

he petitioner claims entitlement to a refund under Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act). Specifically, the petitioner asserts the right to a refund under subsection 3(b) of Section 16 for goods supplied. However, the refund claim is being held up by respondent no.4, citing an ongoing investigation against the petitioner.

The petitioner’s counsel highlighted subsection 10 of Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) as relevant to the case. This provision states that if a registered person due for a refund under subsection 3 has defaulted on filing any returns or owes any tax, interest, or penalty not stayed by any judicial authority, the proper officer has the discretion to:
(a) Withhold the refund payment until the return is filed or the outstanding tax, interest, or penalty is paid.
(b) Deduct from the refund any unpaid tax, interest, penalty, fee, or other amounts the taxable person owes under the CGST Act or existing laws.

The petitioner claims entitlement to a refund under section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act). The petitioner’s counsel argues that the petitioner is specifically entitled to a refund according to sub-section 3(b) of section 16 of the IGST Act for the goods supplied. However, the refund claim is not being processed by respondent no.4 due to an ongoing investigation against the petitioner.

Counsel for the petitioner draws attention to sub-section 10 of section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), which outlines conditions under which refunds may be withheld or adjusted. According to sub-section 10 of section 54 of the CGST Act:

1. Refunds due under sub-section 3 to a registered person can be withheld if the person has not filed any return or owes any tax, interest, or penalty, unless such obligations have been stayed by a court, Tribunal, or Appellate Authority by the specified date.

2. The proper officer has the authority to: a. Withhold the refund until the person has filed the return or paid the tax, interest, or penalty. b. Deduct any outstanding tax, interest, penalty, fee, or other amounts from the refund due that the taxable person owes under this Act or existing law.

The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that, according to these provisions, the withholding of the refund by respondent no.4 on the basis of an ongoing investigation is not justified under the CGST Act’s stipulations for withholding or deducting refunds. The petitioner’s counsel is essentially contending that the refund should be processed regardless of the pending investigation, as the conditions outlined in sub-section 10 of section 54 of the CGST Act do not apply to the petitioner’s situation.

The petitioner claims entitlement to a refund under Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act). According to the petitioner’s counsel, the petitioner is eligible for a refund concerning the supplied goods under sub-section 3(b) of Section 16 of the IGST Act. However, respondent no.4 has not processed this refund claim, citing an ongoing investigation against the petitioner as the reason.

The petitioner’s counsel refers to sub-section 10 of Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) to support their argument. Sub-section 10 of Section 54 of the CGST Act states:

“(10) Where any refund is due under sub-section (3) to a registered person who has defaulted in furnishing any return or who is required to pay any tax, interest or penalty, which has not been stayed by any court, Tribunal or Appellate Authority by the specified date, the proper officer may:
(a) Withhold payment of refund due until the said person has furnished the return or paid the tax, interest or penalty, as the case may be;
(b) Deduct from the refund due, any tax, interest, penalty, fee, or any other amount which the taxable person is liable to pay but which remains unpaid under this Act or under the existing law.”

The petitioner’s counsel argues that, based on these provisions, the refusal to process the refund due to the pending investigation is unjustifiable. The counsel points out a specific application submitted on May 18, 2021, requesting the release of the outstanding amount of drawback and IGST refund, which has not been acted upon.

In summary, the petitioner is contesting the withholding of their refund under the IGST Act, arguing that the pending investigation cited by the respondent is not a valid reason under the CGST Act’s provisions for refusing to process the refund.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: