IGST refund can be granted to exporter after deducting differential duty for opting higher duty drawback

Kunal Housewares Private Limited Vs Union of India and Ors. (Bombay High Court)

Summary: In the case of Kunal Housewares Private Limited Vs. Union of India, the Bombay High Court addressed a dispute over the refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) on exported goods. The petitioner, Kunal Housewares, argued that under Section 16 of the IGST Act, exported goods are “Zero Rated Supplies,” making them eligible for an IGST refund. The petitioner had paid IGST and filed the necessary GSTR forms but faced delays and denials from the customs authorities due to the choice of higher drawback rates. The petitioner contended that the shipping bill should serve as the refund application and that IGST refunds should not be withheld based on the drawback rate selected. The court’s ruling emphasized that Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act and Rule 96 of the CGST Rules should govern IGST refunds, irrespective of the drawback rate claimed. Previous judgments confirmed that refunds should be processed even if higher drawbacks are claimed, provided the differential drawback amount is refunded. The court ultimately determined that withholding the IGST refund due to higher drawback claims was unjustified, aligning with earlier judicial precedents.

The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of M/s Kunal Housewares Private Limited v. Union of India and Ors. [Writ Petition No. 2215 of 2023 dated August 26, 2024] directed the Revenue to grant refund of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax  (“IGST”) paid on ‘zero rated supplies’ to exporter who has claimed drawback at higher rate, after deducting the differential amount of duty drawback, alongwith with interest at  7% p.a. on such refund from the date of the shipping bill till the date of actual refund and held that the higher duty drawback reflects the element of Customs/Central Excise and Service Tax taken together, and since higher duty drawback is already being availed, then granting the IGST refund would amount to double benefit as the Central Excise and Service Tax has been subsumed in the GST.

Facts:

M/s Kunal Housewares Private Limited (“the Petitioner”) exported Stainless Steel Table, kitchen and other household articles in the months of July, August and September 2017. While doing so, certain documents were issued / generated. The Petitioner paid IGST in respect of the exported goods as mentioned in the corresponding entries in respect of the relevant invoices / shipping bills. The Petitioner also selected Column “A” for the purpose of claiming drawback mentioned in the corresponding entry in the said table while generating the relevant bill of entry.

As per the Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“IGST Act”), if IGST is paid in respect of “Zero Rated Supplies”, the exporter would be eligible to get refund of IGST paid in regard to the said supplies in accordance with Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”). Further, it is the case of the Petitioner that, under Rule 96 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 (“the CGST Rules”), the shipping bill generated for the purpose of export of goods is required to be considered as the application for refund and no separate application is required to be filed. Such refund of IGST is required to be credited to the bank account of the exporter directly with the help of portal (GSTN), provided FORM GSTR-1 and FORM GSTR-3B are filed.

The Petitioner had paid IGST in regard to the goods which were exported and had also filed FORM GSTR-1 and FORM GSTR-3B on time. Therefore, it is the case of the Petitioner that the shipping bills filed in regard to the said exports were required to be treated as an application for refund and the refund of IGST paid in regard to exported goods was required to be credited in the Petitioner’s bank account.

The exports were made by the Petitioner in July, August and September 2017. Despite considerably long time having passed, the said refund was not credited to the Petitioner’s bank account. Therefore, the Petitioner’s Custom House Agent time and again personally visited the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (“the Respondent No.2”) office and made requests for refund of IGST in the Petitioner’s bank account at the earliest. However, the same was not done.

During personal visits of the Petitioner’s Custom House Agent, he was informed that, as while generating the shipping bill, the Petitioner had claimed higher rate of drawback at the rate of 9% by selecting column “A”, instead of lower rate of drawback at the rate of 1.9% by selecting column “B”. Hence, the Petitioner would not be eligible to avail refund of IGST. Thereafter, by a letter dated March 13, 2020 was addressed to Respondent No.2, wherein the Petitioner requested him to pay the said amount of refund at the earliest in accordance with the provisions of the statute.

Since. the Respondents failed to refund the IGST amount of Rs.45,88,237/- claimed by the Petitioner, the Petitioner filed the present Petition seeking refund of the said amount.

Issue:

Whether IGST refund can be granted to the exporter after deducting differential duty for opting higher duty drawback?

Held:

The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 2215 of 2023 held as under:

• Relied on, Sunlight Cable Industries v. The Commissioner of Customs NS II and 2 Ors. [Writ Petiton No. 284 of 2021 dated June 27, 2023], Gujarat Nippon International Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [2022 (64) G.S.T.L. 45 (Bom.)], M/s. Jaysons Exports v. Union of India [Special Civil Application No. 16028 of 2020 dated December 22, 2021], Awadkrupa Plastomech Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [2021 (46) G.S.T.L. 31 (Guj.)], Gujarat Nippon International Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [2022 (64) G.S.T.L. 438(Del.)] and in TMA International Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [2020 (35) G.S.T.L. 22 (Del.)], wherein the Courts have held that, if the rate of drawback under column “A” and column “B” is the same, then, in such a situation, refund of IGST has to be ordered even if the party selects column “A”, as, because the rates are identical, by selecting column “A” the party does not get any double benefit.
• Relied on, M/s. AIM Worldwide Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [Special Civil Application No. 15648 of 2020 dated December 22, 2021] , M/s. Vimla Food Products v. Union of India [Special Civil Application No.16028 of 2020 dated December 22, 2021], Amit Cotton Industries v. Principal Commissioner of Customs [2019 (29) G.S.T.L. 200 (Guj.)], Phoenix Contact India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Export), Delhi [2022 (64) G.S.T.L. 163 (Del.)], Nilamel Exports v. Union of India [2019 (29) G.S.T.L. 692 (Ker.)], G NXT Power Corp. v. Union of India and Ors. [WP(C) No.2981 of 2019 (W) dated August 29, 2019], P. Exim v. The Principal Commissioner of Customs [2023 (69) G.S.T.L.240 (Guj.)], Kishan Lal Kuria Mal International v. Union of India [2023 (69) G.S.T.L. 51 (Del.)] and Real Prince Spintex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [2020 (35) G.S.T.L. 369 (Guj.)], wherein the Courts allowed refund of IGST despite the party selecting column “A” and claiming drawback at a higher rate because the party had already paid back the differential drawback or the Courts allowed the refund of IGST by directing deduction therefrom of the differential drawback claimed.
• Relied on, Awadkrupa Plastomech Pvt.Ltd. (Supra), the Gujarat High Court in fact held that Circular No.37/2018 – Customs dated October 09, 2018 would apply only to cases where the exporters have availed the option to take drawback at the higher rate in place of the IGST refund out of their own volition. Further, the rationale for not allowing the refund of IGST for those exporters, who claim higher duty drawback, is that the higher duty drawback reflects the elements of Customs / Central Excise and Service Tax taken together, and since higher duty drawback is already being availed, then granting the IGST refund would amount to double benefit as the Central Excise and Service Tax has been subsumed in the GST.
• Held that, the Petitioner had selected Column “A” and claimed drawback at a higher rate on its own volition. It is not the case of the Petitioner that it had selected column “A” and claimed drawback at a higher rate due to some mistake. The Petitioner did not refund or volunteered to refund the differential amount of drawback claimed by it. As held by the Gujarat High Court (supra), the higher duty drawback reflects the element of Customs / Central Excise and Service Tax taken together, and since higher duty drawback is already being availed of by the Petitioner, then granting the IGST refund would amount to double benefit as the Central Excise and Service Tax has been subsumed in the GST. The SLP against this decision of the Gujarat High Court was dismissed by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Awadkrupa Plastomech Pvt. Ltd. [2021 (54) G. S. T. L. J55 (SC)] on the ground that there was a clear finding of fact recorded by the Gujarat High Court that the Respondent therein had claimed IGST export refund only to the extent of the customs component. The Supreme Court held that there was no error in the said finding of the High Court. Hence, the Petitioner will be entitled to refund of IGST after deducting the differential amount of duty drawback.

Our Comment:

Duty Drawback scheme was introduced by the Ministry of Finance as a rebate for duty chargeable on any imported materials or excisable materials used in manufacture or processing of goods, manufactured in India and exported. The exported products are revenue natural. The Central Government is empowered to grant Duty Drawback under section 74 and 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 (“the Customs Act”). Section 74 of the Customs Act discusses about drawback allowable on re-export of duty-paid goods, wherein duty drawback to the extent of 98% of the duty paid on imported goods can be claimed for re-export, provided the goods are re-exported within two years of payment of import duty. Further, Section 75 of the Customs Act discusses about drawback on imported materials used in the manufacture of goods which are exported, it empowers duty drawback on export of manufactured articles.

The Duty Drawback are of three types:-

• All Industry Rates
• Brand Rates
• Special Brand Rates

No amendments have been made to the drawback provisions under the Customs Act in the GST regime.

In the Pari Materia case of Intec Export India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [W.P. (C) 9065/2023 dated October 30, 2023], the Hon’ble Delhi High Court directed the Revenue to refund IGST despite higher duty drawback selection where column A and B provided identical rates.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT

1. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally.

2. The Petitioner had exported Stainless Steel Table, kitchen and other household articles in the months of July, August and September 2017. While doing so, the documents mentioned in the table herein were issued / generated.

3. The Petitioner paid IGST in respect of the exported goods as mentioned in the corresponding entries in respect of the relevant invoices / shipping bills in the aforesaid table. The Petitioner also selected Column “A” for the purpose of claiming drawback mentioned in the corresponding entry in the said table while generating the relevant bill of entry. As provided in Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“IGST Act”), all goods exported out of India are termed as “Zero Rated Supplies”. It is the case of the Petitioner that, as per the said provision, if IGST is paid in respect of “Zero Rated Supplies”, the exporter would be eligible to get refund of IGST paid in regard to the said supplies. Refund of said IGST paid would be available to the exporter in accordance with Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act”). Further, it is the case of the Petitioner that, under Rule 96 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 (“CGST Rules”), the shipping bill generated for the purpose of export of goods is required to be considered as the application for refund and no separate application is required to be filed.

4. It is further the case of the Petitioner that the refund of IGST so paid is required to be credited to the bank account of the exporter directly with the help of portal (GSTN), provided GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B are filed. In regard to the exports made by the Petitioner, details whereof are tabulated hereinabove, the Petitioner had paid IGST in regard to the goods which were exported and had also filed GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B on time. Therefore, it is the case of the Petitioner that the shipping bills filed in regard to the said exports were required to be treated as an application for refund and the refund of IGST paid in regard to exported goods was required to be credited in the Petitioner’s bank account.

5. The exports were made by the Petitioner in July, August and September 2017. Despite considerably long time having passed, the said refund was not credited to the Petitioner’s bank account. Therefore, the Petitioner’s Custom House Agent time and again personally visited Respondent No.2’s office and made requests for refund of IGST in the Petitioner’s bank account at the earliest. However, the same was not done.

6. It is the case of the Petitioner that, during personal visits of the Petitioner’s Custom House Agent, he was informed that, as while generating the shipping bill, the Petitioner had claimed higher rate of drawback at the rate of 9% by selecting column “A”, instead of lower rate of drawback at the rate of 1.9% by selecting column “B”, the Petitioner would not be eligible to avail refund of IGST. Thereafter, by a letter dated 13^th March 2020 addressed to Respondent No.2, the Petitioner requested him to pay the said amount of refund at the earliest in accordance with the provisions of the statute.

7. Since the Respondents failed to refund the IGST amount of Rs.45,88,237/- claimed by the Petitioner, the Petitioner filed the present Petition seeking refund of the said amount.

8. After filing of this Petition, this Court passed an Order dated 25^th September 2023, whereby the Respondents were directed to apply their mind to the application / letter of the Petitioner and take an appropriate decision before the next date of hearing. The Petitioner was also permitted to submit written submissions and the Respondents were directed to hear the Petitioner before taking a decision.

9.The Petitioner submitted detailed written submissions dated 3^rd October 2023. The Petitioner was heard by the Commissioner of Customs on 4th October 2023. Thereafter, an Order dated 6^th October 2023 was passed by the Commissioner rejecting the Petitioner’s claim for refund. The Petitioner amended the Petition and impugned the said Order dated 6^th October 2023 also.

10. Trivedi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, submitted that, while deciding whether refund of IGST paid on exported goods is to be granted to not, the relevant provisions are Section 16(3)(b) of the IGST Act, Section 54 of the CGST Act and Rule 96 of the CGST Rules. He submitted that the Respondents cannot choose to place reliance on other provisions apart from these provisions. He submitted that Section 54 of the CGST Act deals with all sorts of refund of GST. Section 54(1) covers refund of GST paid on export final product which is to be considered as “Zero Rated Supply” as per Section 16(3)(b) of the IGST Act. The procedure for availing the same is provided in Rule 96 of the CGST Rules.

11. Trivedi further submitted that Section 54(3) of the CGST Act dealt with refund of unutilized input tax credit accumulated on account of inverted rate structure and also such input tax credit of GST being accumulated on account of exports made without payment of tax under section 16(3)(a) of the IGST Act. The procedure for availing the same was provided in Rule 89 of the CGST Rules. The same had nothing to do with refund of IGST paid on exported goods in accordance with Section 16(3)(b) of the IGST Act, which is to be availed under Rule 96 of the CGST Rules.

12. Trivedi further submitted that Section 54(3) specifically incorporates that refund of unutilized credit of IGST being accumulated on account of exports made without payment of GST, i.e. under Section 16(3)(a), would not be allowed if drawback at higher rate is availed. However, there is no such restriction in Section 54(1). Thus, refund of IGST paid on exported goods, which is due and payable in accordance with Section 16 (3)(b) of the IGST Act read with Section 54 of the CGST Act read with Rule 96 of the CGST Rules, cannot be withheld / denied on the ground that drawback at higher rate is claimed.

13. Trivedi further submitted that refund of IGST paid on exported goods could only be withheld / denied in case of contingencies arising as per Rule 96(4) of the CGST Rules. He submitted that the said provision does not cover the case where drawback at a higher rate is claimed in regard to the exported goods.

14. Further, Mr.Trivedi submitted that the contention of the Respondents that refund is to be denied because of Notification No.131/2016 – Cus.(N.T.) dated 31^st October 2016, Notification No.73/2017 – Cus.(N.T.) dated 26^th July 2017, Circular No.32/2017 dated 20^th July 2017 and Circular No.37/2018-Customs dated 9^th October 2018 is completely erroneous. He submitted that the drawback provisions are separate, distinct and complete code in themselves. The provisions under Chapter – X of the Customs Act, i.e. Sections 74, 75, 75A and 76 as well as the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995 and Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017 particularly provide for granting of drawback as well as recovery of drawback along with interest if it is found that the drawback is erroneously or wrongfully paid.

15. Trivedi further submitted that Notification No.131/2016-Cus.(N.T.) dated 31^st October 2016 relied upon by the Respondents would show that the same clearly incorporates that drawback is available subject to various notes and conditions. He submitted that the same meant that in case any of the notes and conditions of the said Notification were not complied with, the only outcome would be that drawback would not be available or that if it is already paid, the same would have to be recovered as provided in the aforesaid Rules. Further, Mr.Trivedi submitted that Notification No.73/2017-Cus.(N.T.) dated 26^th July 2017 amends the notes and conditions of the said Notification No. 131/2016. A new condition No.12A is added. A perusal of the same would show that the exporter may declare that he has not availed credit of IGST and that he will not avail the same in future in regard to the export products or inputs / inputs services used in manufacture of export products or he declares that no refund of IGST paid on export products shall be claimed or he has not carried forward and shall not carry forward the amount of CENVAT credit on export credited under the CGST Act. Mr.Trivedi, submitted that, even if it is assumed that this condition is violated, the only outcome would be that the Respondents may recover the higher drawback amount. However, refund of IGST could not be withdrawn / denied.

16. Trivedi further submitted that even condition no.12A has been complied with by the Petitioner because the Petitioner had not availed and shall not avail input tax credit of the CGST or of the IGST. He submitted that, as the Petitioner had complied with one option, the Petitioner was not required to comply with another option of not availing IGST refund in regard to exported goods.

17. Trivedi submitted that Circular No.32/2017 dated 20^th July 2017, is nothing but an image of the aforesaid condition no.12A. It provides clarification regarding exports under claim for drawback in the GST scenario. It contemplates that a declaration is to be submitted by the exporter claiming drawback at higher rate. A format of the said declaration which is a part of the same Circular would show that this declaration is nothing but a mirror image of the aforesaid condition no.12A

18. Trivedi submitted that since the said condition as well as the said declaration gives an option to the exporter claiming drawback at higher rate of either not availing credit as aforesaid or not claiming refund of IGST, the Petitioner had rightly chosen not to avail the credits. He submitted that therefore, even in that view of the matter, there was no violation of the Circular and that the refund of IGST was required to be granted to the Petitioner.

19. As regards Circular No.37/2018 – Customs dated 9^th October 2018, Mr.Trivedi submitted that it is mentioned in paragraph 3 thereof that where the exporters have made declaration of not availing refund of IGST and on that basis they have claimed drawback at higher rate, no refund of IGST would be paid to them in regard to the exported goods. Mr.Trivedi submitted that no such declaration was given by the Petitioner. Further, the Petitioner had chosen to opt for not availing input tax credit as a condition for claiming drawback at higher rate in regard to the exported goods. Therefore, the said Circular did not prevent the Petitioner from getting refund of IGST paid on exported goods.

19. Trivedi submitted that the issue involved in the present Petition is covered by various judgements and refered to the following judgements:

i) Sunlight Cable Industries vs. The Commissioner of Customs NS II and 2 Ors.¹

ii) Gujarat Nippon International Pvt.Ltd. vs. Union of India²

iii) M/s.AIM Worldwide Pvt.Ltd. vs. Union of India³

iv. M/s.Vimla Food Products vs. Union of India⁴

v. M/s.Jaysons Exports vs. Union of India⁵

vi. Amit Cotton Industries vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs⁶ and order dated 22^nd March 2021 of the Supreme Court dismissing the SLP against the same.

vii. Awadkrupa Plastomech Pvt.Ltd. vs. Union of India⁷ and order dated 30^th July 2021 of the Supreme Court dismissing the SLP against the same.

viii. Gujarat Nippon International Pvt.Ltd. vs. Union of India⁸

ix. Phoenix Contact India Pvt.Ltd. vs. Commr. of Cus. (Exports), New Delhi⁹

x. Nilamel Exports vs. Union of India¹⁰

xi. G NXT Power Corp. vs. Union of India & Ors.¹¹

xii. Precot Meridian Ltd. vs. The Chief Commissioner of Customs¹²

xiii. P.Exim vs. The Principal Commissioner of Customs¹³

xiv. TMA International Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India¹⁴

xv. Kishan Lal Kuria Mal International vs. Union of India¹⁵

21. As far as the Order dated 6^th October 2023 was concerned, Mr.Trivedi submitted that, instead of allowing the refund of IGST, it wrongly rejected the same. He submitted that a perusal of the said order would show that it is admitted therein that the Petitioner had complied with condition no.12A and had not availed ITC as mentioned hereinabove. Mr.Trivedi further submitted that it is also admitted therein that the drawback at higher rate was correctly availed in accordance with the relevant provisions mentioned hereinabove, He further submitted that it was also admitted that Chapter-X of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Drawback Rules are a complete code in itself and if it is found that the drawback is incorrectly availed, the same can be recovered along with interest.

22. On the other hand, Mr.Mishra, appearing on behalf of the Respondents, defended the said Order dated 6^th October 2023. Mr.Mishra, also submitted that the judgements on the issue show that, where refund of IGST has been ordered, the party has been directed to pay back the differential amount of drawback if higher drawback has been claimed by the party.

23. Mishra submitted that the Petitioner cannot claim IGST refund and retain drawback at the higher rate claimed by it. In support of his submissions, Mr.Mishra relied upon the following judgements:

i) Kishan Lal Kuria Mal International vs. Union of India (Supra)

ii) P.Exim vs. Pr.Commissioner of Customs (Supra)

iii) Gujarat Nippon International Pvt.Ltd. vs. Union of India (Bom) (Supra)

iv) Gujarat Nippon International Pvt.Ltd. vs. Union of India (Del.) (Supra)

v) Real Prince Spintex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India¹⁶ and the order of the Supreme Court dated 19^th July 2021 dismissing the SLP against the same.

24. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have considered the documents and judgements referred to by them.

25. As submitted by both the parties, the issue involved in the present Petition is no longer res integra and is covered by various judgements referred to by the parties. These judgements have been passed on facts which are almost identical to the facts in the present case. These judgements have considered the statutory provisions like Section 16(3)(b) of the IGST Act, Section 54 of the CGST Act and Rule 96 of the CGST Rules. These judgements have also considered the various notifications and circulars referred to hereinabove. After considering these statutory provisions, notifications and circulars, these judgements have passed orders based on the factual scenario in each case.

26. On a reading of these judgements, it can be seen that in Sunlight Cable Industries (Supra), Gujarat Nippon International Pvt.Ltd. (BHC) (Supra), M/s.Jaysons Exports vs. Union of India (Supra), Awadkrupa Plastomech Pvt.Ltd. (Supra), Gujarat Nippon International Pvt.Ltd. (DHC) (Supra) and in TMA International Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), the Courts have held that, if the rate of drawback under column “A” and column “B” is the same, then, in such a situation, refund of IGST has to be ordered even if the party selects column “A”, as, because the rates are identical, by selecting column “A” the party does not get any double benefit.

27. Further, in M/s.AIM Worldwide Pvt.Ltd. (Supra), M/s.Vimla Food Products (Supra), Amit Cotton Industries (Supra), Phoenix Contact India Pvt.Ltd. (Supra), Nilamel Exports (Supra), G NXT Power Corp. (Supra), P.Exim (Supra), Kishan Lal Kuria Mal International (Supra) and Real Prince Spintex Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), the Courts allowed refund of IGST despite the party selecting column “A’ and claiming drawback at a higher rate because the party had already paid back the differential drawback or the Courts allowed the refund of IGST by directing deduction therefrom of the differential drawback claimed.

28. In the case of Awadkrupa Plastomech Pvt.Ltd. (Supra), the Gujarat High Court in fact held that Circular No.37/2018 – Customs dated 9^th October 2018 would apply only to cases where the exporters have availed the option to take drawback at the higher rate in place of the IGST refund out of their own volition. Further, it is held that the rationale for not allowing the refund of IGST for those exporters, who claim higher duty drawback, is that the higher duty drawback reflects the elements of Customs / Central Excise and Service Tax taken together, and since higher duty drawback is already being availed, then granting the IGST refund would amount to double benefit as the Central Excise and Service Tax has been subsumed in the GST.

29. In the present case, the Petitioner has selected Column “A’ and claimed drawback at a higher rate on its own volition. It is not the case of the Petitioner that it had selected column “A’ and claimed drawback at a higher rate due to some mistake.

30. The Petitioner has also not refunded or volunteered to refund the differential amount of drawback claimed by it.

31. As held by the Gujarat High Court, the higher duty drawback reflects the element of Customs / Central Excise and Service Tax taken together, and since higher duty drawback is already being availed of by the Petitioner, then granting the IGST refund would amount to double benefit as the Central Excise and Service Tax has been subsumed in the GST. The SLP against this decision of the Gujarat High Court has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on the ground that there was a clear finding of fact recorded by the Gujarat High Court that the Respondent therein had claimed IGST export refund only to the extent of the customs component. The Supreme Court held that there was no error in the said finding of the High Court.

32. In these circumstances, the Petitioner will be entitled to refund of IGST after deducting the differential amount of duty drawback.

33. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, and for the aforesaid reasons, we pass the following orders:

a. The Respondents are directed to grant refund of IGST paid on the goods exported by the Petitioner after deducting the differential amount of duty drawback, within 12 weeks of the date of this order, along with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. on such refund from the date of the shipping bill till the date of actual refund.

b. The Order dated 6^th October 2023 is modified to that extent.

c. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

d. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Notes:

1 Judgement of Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.284 of 2021 dated 27^th June 2023

2 2022 (64) G.S.T.L. 45 (Bom.)

3 Judgement of Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No.15648 of 2020 dated 22^nd December 2021

4 Judgement of Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No.16028 of 2020 dated 22^nd December 2021

5 Judgement of Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No.13157 of 2022 dated 19^th October 2022

6 2019 (29) G.S.T.L. 200 (Guj.)

7 2021 (46) G.S.T.L. 31 (Guj.)

8 2022 (64) G.S.T.L. 438(Del.)

9 2022 (64) G.S.T.L. 163 (Del.)

10 2019 (29) G.S.T.L. 692 (Ker.)

11 Judgement of the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam in WP(C) No.2981 of 2019 (W) dated 29^th August 2019

12 Judgement of the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam in WP(C) No.27772 of 2019 (V) dated 1 ^st November 2019

13 2023 (69) G.S.T.L.240 (Guj.)

14 2020 (35) G.S.T.L. 22 (Del.)

15 2023 (69) G.S.T.L. 51 (Del.)

16 2020 (35) G.S.T.L. 369 (Guj.)

*****

(Author can be reached at [email protected])