Narendra Plastic Private Limited Versus Union of India & Others
GST
2017 (9) TMI 674 – DELHI HIGH COURT – 2017 (4) G. S. T. L. 439 (Del.)
DELHI HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 11-9-2017
W.P. (C) No. 6534\/2017 & C.M. No. 27111\/2017
GST
S. Muralidhar And Prathiba M. Singh, JJ.
\nFor the Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Rastogi, Mr. Rashmi Deshpande, Mr. Ayush A.Mehrotra, Ms. Anjali Krishnan, Mr. Tushar Talwar, Advocates
\nFor the Respondents : Mr. Sanjeev Narula, CGSC with Mr. Abhishek Ghai, Advocate for CBEC
\nORDER
\n1. The present writ petition is by Narendra Plastic Private Limited, which is engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting plastic products and has its registered address at Goregaon (East), Mumbai.
\n2. The Foreign Trade Policy ('FTP') 2015-2020 was notified by Trade Notification No. 1\/2015-2020 dated 1st April 2015 and operationalised by Notification No. 18\/2015-Cus dated 1st April 2015. In terms thereof, an Advance Authorization Scheme (AAS) was made availab<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n st July 2017. Relevant to the present case is the impugned Notification No. 26\/2017-Customs dated 29th June 2017by which changes have been made to the earlier Notification No. 18\/2015 dated 1st April 2015 specifying those duties which are exempt from payment for holders of Advance Authorizations. One significant change is that while many of the earlier exemptions listed out hereinbefore continue, for imports made after 1st July 2017, there is an additional levy of an Integrated Goods and Service Tax ('IGST'). Section 3 (7) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 ('CTA 1975') now provides that: = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n points out that the limited relief that the Petitioner is seeking is in relation to the applicability of the additional levy of IGST to imports made by the Petitioner to fulfil export orders that were placed with it prior to 1st July 2017. The Petitioner prays that it should not be asked to pay the additional IGST on such imports as that would make the levy arbitrary and unreasonable. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n e Directorate General of Foreign Trade ('DGFT'), did not offer any significant comments to the writ petition and, therefore, there was no change in the stand of the Union of India either through the Ministry of Finance or the Ministry of Commerce. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n en placed on and accepted by the Petitioner prior to 1st July, 2017. Also, the Petitioner is seeking to only avail the credit outstanding in respect of advance authorizations issued to the Petitioner prior to 1st July 2017. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Narendra Plastic Private Limited Versus Union of India & OthersGST2017 (9) TMI 674 – DELHI HIGH COURT – 2017 (4) G. S. T. L. 439 (Del.)DELHI HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 11-9-2017W.P. (C) No. 6534\/2017 & C.M. No. 27111\/2017 GSTS. Muralidhar And Prathiba M. Singh, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Rastogi, Mr. Rashmi Deshpande, … Continue reading “Narendra Plastic Private Limited Versus Union of India & Others”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7745","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7745","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=7745"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7745\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=7745"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=7745"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=7745"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n“(7) any article which is imported into India shall, in addition, be liable to integrated tax at such rate, not exceeding forty per cent, as is leviable under Section 5 of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 on a like article on its supply in India, on the value of the imported article as determined under sub-section(8)”
\n5. The grievance of the Petitioner is that it holds export orders place<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n7. This Court first issued notice in the petition on 1st July 2017 proposing to hear the petition on 30th October 2017. However, the Petitioner filed C.M. No. 28923\/2017 seeking an interim order to permit it to make the imports without payment of the additional levy of IGST and also to seek advancement of the date of hearing. On 11th August 2017, while the Court declined interim relief at that stage, it considered it appropriate to advance the hearing of the petition to today.
\n8. Although the Court had granted the time to the Respondent till 31st August 2017 to file a reply to the petition, it is only <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n10. The working of the AAS is such that, for the import of inputs made by exporter towards fulfilment of export orders, the credit of customs duty, as specified in the Advance Authorization licenses issued to the exporter, is permitted to be availed of at the time of import. For instance, in the present case, one of the Advance Authorizations issued to the Petitioner specifies the period for which such authorization is valid, i.e. 18 months. It also specifies the quantity and value of the items that are permitted to be imported in order to fulfil the export obligation. In other words, at the time of import of inputs for fulfilment of export obligations, the verification is undertaken by the Customs Department to ensure that the quantity and <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n13. The Court is of the view that the Petitioner has made out a prima facie case for grant of Prayer (b) in the writ petition, i.e. a direction to the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to continue making the imports under the Advance Authorization licenses issued prior to 1st July, 2017in terms of their quantity and value subject to terms. It is accordingly directed as under:
\n(i) The Petitioner will be permitted to clear the consignments of imports constituting inputs for the fulfilment of its export orders placed on it prior to 1st July 2017 without any additional levies, and subject to the quantity and value as specified in the advance authorization licenses issued to it prior to 1st July 2017.
\n(ii) The above clearance would be subject to (a) verification by <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n