Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

S.R. International (Through ... vs Commissioner Of Customs (Export), New ... on 2 May, 2022

Author: Rajiv Shakdher

Bench: Rajiv Shakdher

                          $~4
                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +      W.P.(C) 5530/2019
                                 S.R. INTERNATIONAL (THROUGH PROPRIETOR SHRI ARUN
                                 SHARMA)                                      ..... Petitioner
                                                 Through: Dr G.K.Sarkar, Mrs Malabika Sarkar,
                                                            Mr Prashant Srivastava & Mr Deepak
                                                            Mahajan, Advocates
                                                 versus
                                 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORT), NEW CUSTOMS
                                 HOUSE, NEW DELHI                             ..... Respondent
                                                 Through: Mr Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing
                                                            Counsel
                                 CORAM:
                                 HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
                                 HON'BLE MS JUSTICE POONAM A. BAMBA
                                                 ORDER

% 02.05.2022 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the refund claimed against nine [9] shipping bills since February 2019, has not been remitted to it.

2. According to Dr G.K. Sarkar, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, the Indian Customs Electronic Gateway [in short "ICEGATE"] portal shows that the concerned shipping bills stand successfully validated. 2.1. In support of his submissions, Dr Sarkar relies upon Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 and Rule 96 of the CGST Rules, 2017.

3. Mr Harpreet Singh, who appears on behalf of the respondent, says that the refund was held up on account of investigation. 3.1. According to Mr Harpreet Singh, he needs to ascertain as to what is the stage of the investigation.

4. Prima facie, we are of the view that sixty [60] days timeframe has been provided in the statute, [commencing from the date of receipt of the application by the respondent/revenue] to take a decision in the matter as to whether or not the refund is payable to the claimant. 4.1. In fact, in terms of Section 56 of the CGST Act 2017, statutory interest @ 6% runs, which is, payable after expiry of 60 days. 4.2. The fact that there is no movement for the past three years is a matter of concern.

5. To be noted, we are told by Dr Sarkar that the refund involved is approximately Rs.12 crores.

6. At the request of Mr Harpreet Singh, list the matter on 27.05.2022.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J POONAM A. BAMBA, J MAY 2, 2022 rb Click here to check corrigendum, if any W.P.(C) 5530/2019 2/2 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:06.05.2022 00:20:48