Kuntal Granites Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court)
Summary: The petitioner, Kuntal Granites Private Limited, is engaged in processing granite slabs, tiles, panels and other stone products. It had been availing refund of IGST paid on exports under Rule 96 of the CGST Rules, 2017.
The first respondent issued a notice dated 28.09.2020 stating that the petitioner was not a holder of an EPCG licence and was therefore not eligible for export with payment of tax and to claim IGST refund benefits on exported goods. The notice also recorded that the petitioner had availed IGST refunds between 09.10.2018 and 31.03.2020 and that grant of IGST refund for subsequent shipping bills pertaining to the IEC had been suspended for further enquiry.
During pendency of the writ petition, the suspension relating to the IEC code was revoked. The petitioner therefore sought permission to produce the necessary documents relating to its refund claim before the second respondent and requested a direction for consideration of the refund claim.
The respondents raised no serious objection to this limited relief.
The Madras High Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, permitted the petitioner to produce the necessary documents relating to the IGST refund claim before the second respondent, in terms of the notice dated 28.09.2020, within two weeks from receipt of the order. The second respondent was directed to consider the documents on merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within six weeks thereafter.
The writ petition was accordingly disposed of without costs.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent’s notice dated 28.09.2020 in DIN 20200973MZ00002RB587 in F.No. S.Misc/10/2020/IGST-Refunds-(CH.IV) and quash the same, and consequently direct the respondents to process the petitioner’s refund claim of IGST paid on export in accordance to Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 96 of CGST Rules, 2017.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner company is engaged in the business of processing of granite slabs/ tiles/ panels and other stone products. The petitioner had been availing refund of IGST paid on export as per the provisions of Rule 96, CGST Rules, 2017. However, the first respondent issued the impugned notice stating that the petitioner is not a holder of EPCG license, thus not eligible for export with payment of tax and to claim for IGST refund benefits on exported goods, however, the petitioner availed IGST refunds between 09.10.2018 to 31.03.2020 on exported goods and that grant of IGST refund for subsequent shipping bills pertaining to IEC has been suspended for further enquiry and challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
4.The learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents raise no serious objection.
5.Considering the limited relief now sought for by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, permits the petitioner to produce necessary documents with regard to the claim of refund of IGST before the second respondent, as per the impugned notice dated 28.09.2020, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such documents, the second respondent shall consider the same, on merits and in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders, within a period of six weeks thereafter.
6.The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
