Medical Bureau v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax Delhi North & Ors
[Citation -2020-LL-1110-43]

Citation 2020-LL-1110-43
Appellant Name Medical Bureau
Respondent Name Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax Delhi North & Ors.
Relevant Act CGST
Date of Order 10/11/2020
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags goods and services tax • tax credit • refund

$ 4 * IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P. (C) 3917/2020 MEDICAL BUREAU ...... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahna, Advocate with Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Mr. Mayank Kouts and Mr. Ramanand Roy, Advocates. versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DELHI NORTH & ORS. ...... Respondents Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel. % Date of Decision: 10th November, 2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J (Oral): 1. petition has been heard by way of video conferencing. 2. petitioner by way of present writ petition challenges order dated 01st June, 2020 passed by Appellate Authority whereby respondent have denied refund due to petitioner in spite of fact that petitioner had made exports of goods outside India and such exports are regarded as zero rated supplies under Section 16 of Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short IGST Act ) on which petitioner was entitled to refund of input tax credit under Section 54(3) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short CGST Act ). relevant portion of impugned order WP(C) 3917/2020 Page 1 of 4 reads as under: 8. Summary of decision:- As per notification no. 48/48/2018-Cusoms (NT) dated 04.06.2018 read with circular no. 14/2018-Customs dated 04.06.2018, it was noticed that export regulations states that "Any IEC holder exporting goods through FPO, will be eligible for zero rating of exports, by way of IGST refund or discharge of LUT and same come into force on 21st June 2018. said circular as made it clear that facility of IGST Refund or discharge of LUT in case of export made through FPO will not be effective retrospectively. However, subject refund claims pertained to period August, 2017 and September, 2017 and hence supplies made by appellant during these periods are not 'zero rated' and therefore, in view of above circular dated 04.06.2018, appellant is not entitled for refund of Input Tax Credit as LUT is not discharged. 3. Mr. Rajesh Mahna, learned counsel for petitioner states that refund has been denied to petitioner on sole ground that petitioner had exported goods through Foreign Post Offices in August and September 2017, while Notification dated 04th June, 2018 read with Circular No.14/2018-Customs dated 04th June, 2018 has notified exports by post Regulations, 2018 w.e.f. 21st June, 2018 which provides for entry to be presented to proper officer at Foreign Post Office of clearance. He submits that said Notification in no manner whatsoever affects supplies to be regarded as zero rated under Section 16 of IGST Act read with Section 54(3) of CGST Act. He also states that admitted position is that exports had taken place and confirmation from Foreign Post Office was available. He points out that under old VAT regime, petitioner had been given refunds. WP(C) 3917/2020 Page 2 of 4 4. Learned counsel for petitioner lastly contends that new procedure for filing postal bill of exports doesn t take away substantive right to claim refund of input tax credit in respect of zero rated supplies under Statue. 5. In pursuance to specific direction given by this Court, respondent has filed affidavit dated 22nd October, 2020 clarifying its stand. relevant portion of said affidavit reads as under: 5. That, I further respectfully submit, Circular No.14/2018- Customs dated 4.6.2018 does not determine eligibility of allowing refunds of ITC on exports, but provides that such refunds are permissible, so as to dispel any doubts in minds of exporters regarding their eligibility to claim refunds of ITC in case of exports through postal mode. impugned circular mentions that to facilitate refund of ITC, data will be captured and uploaded through off-line utility (ICAN-lite) provided by DG (Systems) and it was issued with objective and purposes of prescribing customs compliances for exports done under postal mode and not to clarify on eligibility or otherwise of refunds on such exports. subject sentence in circular cited by adjudicating authorities, "Any IEC holder exporting goods through FPO, will be eligible for zero rating of exports, by way of IGST refund or discharge of LUT. Those who do not wish to avail this facility or fall in category of Exempted/Non- Taxable are also permitted to export under same procedure.", was to make it amply clear that, refund of ITC would also be available, for exports through postal mode, if otherwise eligible. 6. That, deponent respectfully submits, said circular is not intended to be clarification, much less determination, of refund issue. refunds shall be examined with reference to their compliance with extant provisions, including law and procedures relating to GST & Customs. WP(C) 3917/2020 Page 3 of 4 6. Keeping in view of aforesaid counter-affidavit, admitted position is that Circular No.14/2018-Customs dated 04th June, 2018 is neither clarificatory nor it determines eligibility of allowing refund of Input Tax Credit on exports. In any event, new procedure cannot be made applicable from retrospective date. 7. Consequently, impugned orders dated 01st June, 2020 passed by respondent no.3 as well as orders dated 11th March, 2019 and 22nd July, 2019 issued by respondent no.2 are set aside and matter is remanded back to Original Adjudicating Authority i.e. Assistant Commissioner, who in turn is directed to decide same in accordance with law within four weeks. Accordingly, present petition stands disposed of. 8. order be uploaded on website forthwith. Copy of order be also forwarded to learned counsel through e-mail. MANMOHAN, J SANJEEV NARULA, J NOVEMBER 10, 2020 AS WP(C) 3917/2020 Page 4 of 4 Medical Bureau v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax Delhi North & Or
Report Error