Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Medical Bureau Vs Commissioner of Central Goods And Services Tax Delhi North & Ors. (Delhi High Court)
Appeal Number : W .P. (C) 3917/2020
Date of Judgement/Order : 10/11/2020
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Medical Bureau Vs Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax Delhi North & Ors. (Delhi High Court)

1. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.

2. The petitioner by way of the present writ petition challenges the order dated 01st June, 2020 passed by the Appellate Authority whereby the respondent have denied refund due to the petitioner in spite of the fact that the petitioner had made exports of goods outside India and such exports are regarded as zero rated supplies under Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘IGST Act’) on which the petitioner was entitled to refund of input tax credit under Section 54(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘CGST Act’). The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under:

“8. Summary of decision:- As per notification no. 48/2018-Customs (NT) dated 04.06.2018 read with circular no. 14/2018-Customs dated 04.06.2018, it was noticed that the export regulations states that “Any IEC holder exporting goods through the FPO, will be eligible for zero rating of exports, by way of IGST refund or discharge of LUT” and same come into force on 21st June 2018. The said circular as made it clear that the facility of IGST Refund or discharge of LUT in case of export made through FPO will not be effective retrospectively. However, the subject refund claims pertained to the period August, 2017 and September, 2017 and hence the supplies made by the appellant during these periods are not ‘zero rated’ and therefore, in view of the above circular dated 04.06.2018, the appellant is not entitled for refund of Input Tax Credit as the LUT is not discharged.”

3. Mr. Rajesh Mahna, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the refund has been denied to the petitioner on the sole ground that petitioner had exported goods through Foreign Post Offices in August and September 2017, while Notification dated 04th June, 2018 read with circular no. 14/2018-Customs dated 04.06.2018 has notified exports by post Regulations, 2018 w.e.f. 21st June, 2018 which provides for an entry to be presented to proper officer at the Foreign Post Office of clearance. He submits that the said Notification in no manner whatsoever affects supplies to be regarded as zero rated under Section 16 of the IGST Act read with Section 54(3) of the CGST Act. He also states that the admitted position is that exports had taken place and confirmation from Foreign Post Office was available. He points out that under the old VAT regime, the petitioner had been given refunds.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031