Tonbo Imaging India Pvt Ltd VS Union of India

The petitioner seeks relief from the court in the form of several writs pertaining to provisions under the CGST Rules. Firstly, the petitioner requests the issuance of a writ declaring Rule 89(4)(C) of the CGST Rules, as amended by Notification 16/2020-CT dated 23.03.2020 (enclosed as Annexure A), unconstitutional. This request is based on grounds presented by the petitioner.

Secondly, the petitioner requests another writ declaring the provisions of the Explanation to Rule 93 of the CGST Rules (enclosed as Annexure B) unconstitutional, citing specific reasons detailed in the grounds presented.

Additionally, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari or any appropriate writ to quash an impugned order passed by [details of the impugned order].

These requests are made in the context of challenging specific provisions of the CGST Rules on constitutional grounds, seeking judicial review and relief from the court.

This legal petition seeks relief from the court regarding several issues related to the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules. The petitioner requests:

a. Declaration that Rule 89(4)(C) of the CGST Rules, as amended by Notification 16/2020-CT dated 23.03.2020 (Annexure A), is unconstitutional.

b. Declaration that the Explanation to Rule 93 of the CGST Rules (Annexure B) is unconstitutional.

c. Quashing of an order issued by Respondent No. 3 in Form GST-RFD-06 dated 30.06.2020 (Annexure C).

d. Directing Respondent No. 3 to accept and process six refund applications (in Form GST-RFD-01 for tax periods from May 2018 to March 2019) and grant refunds with interest (Annexures D1 to D6).

e. Granting any other consequential relief deemed appropriate by the Hon’ble High Court, including refunds of amounts paid and costs of the petition.

The main focus of the petition is the validity of Rule 89(4)(C) of the CGST Rules, particularly after its amendment by Notification No. 16/2020-CT dated 23.03.2020. This rule pertains to the turnover of zero-rated supply of goods made without tax payment under bond or letter of undertaking. The petition argues that the amendments and certain explanations to the rules are unconstitutional, seeking judicial intervention to address these issues comprehensively.

The petition seeks judicial intervention on several grounds related to provisions under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules. Firstly, it challenges the constitutionality of Rule 89(4)(C), as amended by Notification 16/2020-CT dated 23.03.2020 (Annexure A), arguing that the amendment is unconstitutional for reasons detailed in the petition.

Secondly, it challenges the validity of the Explanation to Rule 93 of the CGST Rules (Annexure B), seeking a declaration that it is also unconstitutional based on the grounds provided.

Thirdly, the petition requests the court to issue a writ of certiorari to quash an order issued by Respondent No. 3 in Form GST-RFD-06 dated 30.06.2020 (Annexure C), citing specific reasons stated in the grounds of the petition.

Fourthly, it seeks a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No. 3 to accept six refund applications in Form GST-RFD-01, filed on various dates in May and June 2020 (Annexures D1 to D6), and to grant refunds of taxes along with interest, in accordance with the law.

Finally, the petition requests any other consequential relief deemed fit by the Hon’ble High Court, including refund of amounts paid, if applicable, and costs associated with filing the writ petition.

Central to the petition is the challenge against Rule 89(4)(C) of the CGST Rules, both before and after its amendment on 23.03.2020. Prior to amendment, the rule defined turnover of zero-rated supply of goods differently compared to its amended version, which now includes a provision calculating it as 1.5 times the value of like goods domestically supplied, whichever is less. The amendment’s legality and implications form a critical aspect of the petition’s arguments.

In essence, the petition aims to challenge the constitutionality of specific GST rules, seek judicial review of administrative decisions, and ensure compliance with statutory obligations related to tax refunds under the GST regime.

The main contention revolves around the validity of Rule 89(4C), which defines the turnover of zero-rated supply of goods for the purpose of tax refunds, and the Explanation to Rule 93, which pertains to the process of granting refunds under GST rules. Prior to the amendment, Rule 89(4C) allowed for calculating turnover based on the value of zero-rated supply of goods without tax payment under bond or letter of undertaking. Post-amendment, effective from 23.03.2020, it introduced an alternative calculation based on 1.5 times the value of like goods domestically supplied, whichever is less.

Tonbo Imaging India Pvt Ltd, engaged in advanced imaging and sensor systems development, argues that these amendments are unconstitutional, affecting their ability to claim rightful refunds under GST provisions. Their business focuses on designing technologies for military applications, critical infrastructure, and unmanned reconnaissance, necessitating clarity and consistency in tax refund mechanisms.

The outcome of this petition will likely impact the interpretation and application of GST rules concerning zero-rated supplies and refund procedures, particularly for innovative sectors like advanced imaging and sensor systems.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: