Case Law Details
Majeed Kunnapallil Jabir Vs Superintendent (Kerala High Court)
In Majeed Kunnapallil Jabir vs. Superintendent, the Kerala High Court addressed the petitioner’s pending IGST refund claim on exports, which had been unresolved since June 2022. The petitioner argued that, under Section 54 of the CGST Act and Rule 96 of the CGST Rules, the refund should have been processed within 60 days. Additionally, the petitioner contended that being classified as a “risky exporter” had led to an unwarranted delay in refund processing, and even a provisional refund of 90%, as per Section 54(6) of the CGST Act, had not been granted.
The court directed the tax authorities to decide on the refund application within two months after providing an opportunity for a hearing. The authorities were also instructed to review the petitioner’s classification as a “risky exporter” if an application for removal from the list was submitted. This ruling reinforces the necessity of timely decision-making in IGST refunds and adherence to due process before withholding tax benefits.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
The claim of the petitioner for refund of IGST paid on exports (Ext.P3) has been pending since the year 2022. It is the case of the petitioner that going by the provisions of Section 54 of the CGST Act read with the provisions of Rule 96 of the CGST Rules, the claim for refund is to be processed within a period of 60 days. It is submitted that the shipping bill itself is deemed to be the application for refund. It is submitted that the petitioner has been wrongly classified as a ‘risky exporter’ and a decision has been withheld on his application for refund.
2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that Ext.P10 circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs would indicate that in the case of a person who has been classified as a ‘risky exporter’, the provisions of Rule 96(5A) of the CGST Rules contemplate the procedure to be followed before sanctioning of refund. It is submitted that the proper officer has to take a decision on the matter and such decision can be taken within a time to be specified by this Court, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in reply that even a provisional refund of 90% as contemplated by the provisions of Section 54(6) of the CGST Act has not been granted to the petitioner.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that since the refund application of the petitioner is deemed to be pending from the date of filing of the shipping bill i.e. June 2022 (on account of the fact that the petitioner has been classified as a ‘risky exporter’), the proper officer is required to take a decision in the matter, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Accordingly, this writ petition will stand disposed of directing the 2nd respondent or other competent authority to take a decision on the application submitted by the petitioner for refund, in accordance with the law and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. It will also be open to the petitioner to move the competent authority for removing the name of the petitioner from the list of ‘risky exporters’. If such application is made or is pending, the competent authority shall take a decision on that application also, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner without further delay.
Author Bio
