Case Law Details
R P Exim Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (Gujarat High Court)
In the case of R P Exim Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs, the Gujarat High Court addressed multiple writ applications regarding the refund of IGST paid on exported goods classified as ‘Zero Rated Supplies.’ The petitioner, R P Exim, sought a mandamus directing authorities to sanction the IGST refund of ₹16,80,817 along with 9% interest, citing the undue withholding of funds by customs authorities. The court referenced earlier rulings in Amit Cotton Industries and Awadkrupa Plastomech Pvt. Ltd, wherein similar issues were resolved in favor of exporters. The Supreme Court had dismissed an appeal by the Union of India against the High Court’s decision in Awadkrupa Plastomech, affirming the refund process. In light of these precedents, the Gujarat High Court ruled in favor of R P Exim, ordering the respondents to refund the IGST with 6% simple interest from the date of shipping bills until the refund is made. The court emphasized the need for timely compliance with refund obligations, ensuring exporters’ rights are upheld under the provisions of zero-rated exports.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT
1 Since the issues raised in all the captioned writ applications are the same, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.
2 For the sake of convenience, the Special Civil Application NO.6752 of 2020 is treated as the lead matter.
3 By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
“A. Your Lordships may be pleased to admit this petition;
“B. Your Lordships may be pleased to allow this petition.
C. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondent authorities to immediately sanction the refund of IGST aggregating to Rs.16,80,817/-paid in regard to the goods exported i.e. ‘Zero Rated Supplies’ made vide aforesaid shipping bills mentioned in para 5.6 hereinabove;
D. Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pay interest @ 9% to the petitioner herein on the amount of refund of IGST mentioned hereinabove from the date of shipping bills up till the date on which the amount of refund is paid to the petitioner herein, as the same is arbitrarily and illegally withheld by the respondent authorities.
E. Your Lordships may be pleased to grant an ex-parte, ad interim order in favour of the petitioner herein in terms of prayer clause ‘C’ and ‘D’ hereinabove;
F. Since the petitioner are constrained to approach Your Lordships by way of this petition only because of illegal act of respondent authorities, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pay a cost of this litigation to the petitioner herein;
G. Your Lordships may be pleased to grant such other and further relief/(s) that may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice in favor of the petitioner.”
4 We have heard Mr. D. K. Trivedi, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant and Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, the learned A.G.P. appearing for the respondents.
5 The short point involved in the present writ application is with regard to the sanction of the refund of IGST paid in respect of the goods exported i.e. ‘Zero Rated Supplies’ made in connection with the shipping bills.
6 The issue is no longer res integra in view of two pronouncements of this High Court (i) in the case of Amit Cotton Industries vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs [2019 (29) GSTL 200 (Guj)] and (ii) Awadkrupa Plastomech Pvt. Ltd vs. Union of India [2021 (46) GSTL 31 (Guj)].
7 We take notice of the fact that Awadkrupa Plastomech (supra) was challenged by the Union of India before the Supreme Court. Leave was granted, and ultimately, the appeal of the Union came to be dismissed. We quote the order passed by the Supreme Court in the Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.7095 of 2021 decided on 30th July 2021 as follows:
“1 There is a clear finding of fact which has been recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in its order dated 15 December 2020 that the respondent had claimed an IGST export refund only to the extent of the customs component. We see no error in the finding of the High Court.
2 The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.”
8 In view of the aforesaid, all the writ applications succeed and are hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to sanction the respective refunds of the IGST paid in respect of the goods exported i.e. ‘Zero Rated Supplies’ with 6% simple interest from the date of the shipping bills till the date of actual refund. It goes without saying that in any of the captioned writ applications, if the differential duty has not been paid, the same shall be paid at the earliest. All the writ applications stand disposed of accordingly.
Author Bio
