S.H. Exports VS Commissioner Of CGST

The petitioner has filed a writ petition seeking a directive for the respondents to release the refund amount pertaining to the refund applications submitted by the petitioner for exports made during the months of July and August 2019. The petition was heard via video conferencing.

The petition, heard via video conferencing, concerns the petitioner’s request for the release of refunds related to export transactions. The petitioner, represented by Mr. Priyadarshi Manish, seeks a court order directing the respondents to process and release refunds for the export transactions made in July and August 2019. These transactions were conducted under Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act), which pertains to zero-rated supplies.

The petitioner contends that the exported goods, which are zero-rated under the IGST Act, qualify for a refund of the taxes paid during procurement. Despite filing the necessary refund applications in a timely manner, the petitioner claims that the respondents have failed to process these refunds, thereby causing financial hardship and disrupting business operations.

The petitioner emphasizes the legal obligation of the respondents to adhere to the provisions of the IGST Act and release the due refunds promptly. The delay in refund processing is argued to be a violation of the petitioner’s rights and contrary to the legislative intent of facilitating smooth and efficient export transactions under the zero-rated supply mechanism.

In light of these arguments, the petitioner seeks judicial intervention to ensure compliance with the statutory provisions and expedite the refund process, thereby alleviating the financial strain caused by the delayed refunds.

The petition, heard via video conferencing, seeks a directive for the respondents to release refunds related to export applications filed by the petitioner for July and August 2019. The petitioner, represented by Mr. Priyadarshi Manish, argues that the goods were exported under Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act), as zero-rated supplies without payment of IGST against a Letter of Undertaking (LUT). Consequently, the petitioner claims entitlement to a refund of the input tax credit paid as GST on the procured goods.

The petitioner asserts that they addressed all discrepancies and deficiencies in the July 2019 refund application, as identified by the Assistant Commissioner of the GST Delhi South Commissionerate in a deficiency memo dated 30th August 2019. The receipt of the requisite information was acknowledged by the Assistant Commissioner, Division Naraina, on 17th September 2019.

Furthermore, the petitioner filed the refund application for August 2019 on 19th March 2020. However, the petitioner contends that the status of this application was not displayed on the portal, leading to the current petition seeking resolution and release of the due refunds.

The present writ petition, heard via video conferencing, involves the petitioner seeking a directive for the release of refunds concerning export transactions for July and August 2019. Mr. Priyadarshi Manish, the petitioner’s counsel, asserts that the goods were exported under Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act), designated as zero-rated supply without IGST payment, against a Letter of Undertaking (LUT) for the mentioned months. Consequently, the petitioner claims entitlement to a refund of the input tax credit paid as GST during the procurement of these goods.

The petitioner addressed all discrepancies for the July 2019 refund application, as noted by the Assistant Commissioner, GST Delhi South Commissionerate, in a deficiency memo dated August 30, 2019. The Assistant Commissioner, Division Naraina, acknowledged receiving all necessary information on September 17, 2019. For August 2019, the petitioner initially filed the refund application on March 19, 2020. Due to the application’s status not appearing on the portal, the petitioner re-applied online on May 9, 2020.

Sections 54 and 56 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, along with Rules 90 and 91 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, provide a comprehensive procedure for acknowledgment, scrutiny, and timely refund issuance. The petitioner’s counsel references the court’s judgment in “Jian International Vs. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax, W.P. (C) 4205/2020” to support the submission.

The court issued a notice, and Ms. Sonu Bhatnagar, counsel for the respondents, accepted it.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: