SLP filed by the Govt. against the Hon’ble Delhi High Court order allowing exemption from IGST in respect of imports made post GST introduction under advance authorization scheme. SC dismissed the said SLP filed by CBIC.
Earlier, the Delhi High court disposed write petition in case of Narendra Plastics (P) Ltd. by followed decision in case of Jindal Dyechem Industries (P) Ltd. challenging curtailment of duty exemption benefits under Advance Authorization scheme post implementation of GST.
Jindal Dyechem Industries (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors.
In this case petitioner showing IGST to the tune of Rs. 58,58,345 in respect of Bill of Entry dated October 10, 2017 for import of gold bars from Abu Dhabi. The Petitioner was not permitted to clear the goods without such payment.
The petitioner is the beneficiary of an advance license issued on July 17, 2017. At that point of time, the exemption of IGST, was not in force, the customs Notification No. 26/2017-Cus dated June 29, 2017 was amended vide Notification No. 79/2017-Cus dated October 13, 2017. It is apparent from these facts that the imports which are the subject matter of the present writ petition were in fact made after the introduction of GST Regime.
The Customs Authorities refused to grant the facility of exemption from payment of customs levy for the goods imported solely for the purpose of fulfilling export obligations. The petitioner was issued advance authorizations under the extant Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20. The petitioner contends that the prevailing exemptions under the custom notifications, could not have been denied merely on the premise of the introduction of a new levy under the Goods and Service Tax with effect from July 01,2017.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court is of the opinion that since the benefit of exemption in fact existed at that point of time, the most appropriate course would be for the respondent authorities to verify whether as a matter of fact the petitioner has fulfilled the export obligations pursuant to the advance license of July 18, 2017. If it did, there is no need for any further action.
However, if it did not, then the appropriate and necessary assessment in accordance with law may be resorted to. The respondent shall ensure that further proceedings towards verification and any consequential order shall be completed within four months from the date of the Order with advance notice and proper opportunity to the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of in the above terms.
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
(Author can be reached at Email: email@example.com)