Refund—Petitioners have challenged the vires of Rule 96(10)(b) of Central Goods and Service Tax Rules as being ultra vires the parent Act and the Constitution of India, in particular, the petitioners are aggrieved by the subordinate legislation giving retrospective effect to the amended provision by virtue of which, upon export of goods, the duty which is already refunded, would have to be paid back to the Government. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time of export, the petitioners had an option either to export the goods without payment of duty or pay the duty at the time of export and claim refund. In case of former option, the amendment in the Rules would have no effect. This according to counsel is a clear case of arbitrary distinction.
Held that :- Notice returnable on 17.10.2018. Direct service to respondent No.3 is permitted. In addition to the Court process respondents No. 1 and 2 may also be communicated this order through Email by the petitioners. 4 TAXLOK.COM 117 (Guj)