GST Authorities – The petitioner is a proprietor of M/s. Raj Exim, who is a merchant exporter having Goods and Service Tax registration No. 33ABTPT0566G1ZB. It is stated that as provided in Rule 96 of the CGST Rules, 2017, the shipping bill filled by an exporter of goods shall be deemed to be an application for refund of integrated tax paid on the goods exported out of India and such application shall be deemed to have been filed only when the person in charge of conveyance carrying the export goods duly files and export manifest or an export report covering the number and the date of shipping bills or bills of export and the applicant has furnished a valid return in Form -GSTR-3 or Form GSTR-3B. Accordingly, the petitioners have for the purpose of exporting goods out of India issued Commercial Invoice and Export Invoice. The goods were exported through Amreli Sea port and Shipping Bills, Export General Manifest and Bill of Lading were also generated. It is further submitted that as provided in Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017, read with Section 16 of IGST Act, 2017, immediately after the goods are exported, considering the shipping bills as application for refund of IGST paid in regard to the export goods, the respondent authorities are supposed to refund the said amount of IGST to the petitioner immediately. The grievance of the petitioner is that exports were made in September 2017, but till date, IGST is not refunded to the petitioner. Hence, this Writ Petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment stating that the issue involved in this Writ Petition is covered by the orders of various Courts across the Country. More particularly, he relied on the order of this Court in Madras High Court, M/s. Precot Meridian Limited Vs. The Commissioner of Customs, where the Court held that the petitioner was entitled for refund and it cannot be ignored by citing the circular. The circular stated that when the registered person claims duty drawback, he is not entitle of refund of IGST. In that case the registered person had mistakenly claimed duty drawbacks but however, he paid the duty drawbacks along with interest. Circulars and instructions issued by the Board are no doubt binding in law on the authorities under the respective statutes, but when the Supreme Court or the High Court declares the law on the question arising for consideration, it would not be appropriate for the Court to direct that the circular should be given effect to and not the view expressed in a decision of this Court or the High Court.

GST Authorities – When the above circular was dealt with by the Hon’ble Divison Bench of Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad in M/s.Amit Cotton Industries through partner, Velijibhai Virjibhai Ranipa vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, in R/Special Civil Application No.20126 of 2018, dated 27.06.2019, the Division Bench has held that it has nothing to do with the IGST refund and it is incumbent on the respondents to refund the IGST as claimed by the petitioner herein. The respondents have already passed a circular when they were facing lot of problems because of the fact that the refunds are completely system managed and they have taken a conscious decision to refund the amount vide Circular No.40/2018-Customs, dated 24.10.2018. .In view of the above discussion, the respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs.4,80,355/- of IGST paid by the petitioner for the goods exported from India which are zero rated supplies, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.