Tulip Turnomatic Vs Commissioner of Customs (Gujarat High Court)
Gujarat High Court held that the refund of IGST paid under Section 16(3)(b) of the IGST Act, read with Section 54 of the GST Act, is allowable and directed the authorities to amend the shipping bill in ICEGATE to clear the mismatch between the PAN of the GST ID and the Shipping Bill GST ID.
Facts-
The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacture and export of wide range of Brass Parts and ferrous and non-ferrous components and is duly registered under the provisions of the Central/State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
During February-2023, the petitioner has exported certain goods being zero rated supply u/s. 16 of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 having total invoice value of 1,15,21,802/- and the taxable value of the such export was Rs.97,64,239/- including IGST amount of Rs.17,57,563/-. The petitioner therefore was entitled to the refund as per the provision of Section 16 (3) (b) of the IGST Act. However, the refund was denied as CHA inadvertently mentioned wrong details.
Conclusion-
Held that that the petitioner is the victim of computer software. It appears that there is no system to give effect of amendment of the shipping bill in the ICEGATE so as to remove the mismatch between the PAN of GST and ID and Shipping Bills GST ID. The order passed by the respondent no.1 on 21.04.2023 under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 by approving the amendment of shipping bill no.8106393 by modifying the IEC Code and GSTIN ought to have been amended in the However, there is no mechanism to give effect to the order dated 21.04.2023 by the computer software and as such, the order dated 21.04.2023 has remained on paper only without being reflected in the ICEGATE system and because of such technical glitch, the petitioner is not granted the refund of the IGST paid by the petitioner under Section 16(3) (b) of the IGST Act read with Section 54 of the GST Act.
