Apar Industries Limited Versus Union of India & Others
GST
2018 (10) TMI 1619 – BOMBAY HIGH COURT – TMI
BOMBAY HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 24-10-2018
WRIT PETITION NO. 3985 OF 2018
GST
M.S. SANKLECHA, & RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.
Mr. Prakash D. Shah with Mr. Mihir Mehta and Ms. Shilpi Jain i/b. PDS Legal, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly with Mr. Ram Ochani, for the Respondents.
P.C:
This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, originally seeks a refund of Rs. 52.97 Crores along with interest thereon under Section 56 of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act (the Act). Besides, seeking an interest on delayed refund of Rs. 1.90 Crores which was already granted to the Petitioner. These refunds arose on account of tax paid in respect of exported goods under Section 16 of the Integrated Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act). During the pendency of this Petition, an amount of Rs. 52.52 Crores has already been refunded under the Act read with IGST Act
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ioner, disputes the fact that there is any invoice mismatch. Our attention is invited to the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) issued by the Madras Commissionerate dated 23rd February, 2018 wherein an error in respect of Invoice mismatch I.e. SB005, was a subject matter of consideration. Our attention was also invited to the Circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs dated 23rd February, 2018 wherein again, non-grant of refund, because of mismatch of Invoices, was a subject matter of consideration. In both the cases, it was directed that refund be granted. Therefore, it submitted that in terms of the above the interest as sought should be granted.
5. We find that on oath, the Respondents state that there is an Invoices mismatch in respect of the refund sought. Thus, leading to delay in passing the refund. This is disputed by the Petitioner. Besides, the aforesaid Circulars and FAQ, inter alia, deal with grant of refund in spite of Invoices mismatch/ error, as in
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
issioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva, Navi Mumbai. However, in the affidavit in reply, he has already taken a stand, that no interest can be granted in these facts to the Petitioner. Therefore, the apprehension of the Petitioner that it may not get justice at the hands of Mr. Balmukund Agarwal, seems justified. Justice must not only be done but also appear to be done. Therefore, in these circumstances, it would be appropriate that some other Assistant Commissioner of Customs be alloted to deal with the Petitioner's pending application for refund of tax as well as interest on the refunds already granted.
9. Mr. Jetly, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue, on instructions, states that the representation could be filed with Mr. Jaiswal, Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Drawback, Navha sheva, Navi Mumbai. The above Officer who would adjudicate the Petitioner's claim for interest on the refund granted and the pending refund application, as expeditiously as possible and preferabl
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =