For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on GST
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our GST Library

The original dispute for which the petitioner came before us was the incidence of tax liability that had fallen upon the petitioner on account of delay in making export within the specified time in terms of the notification dated 23rd October, 2017. Since extension of time has been granted now by the competent authority under CGST in terms of Rule 96A(1) (a) of CGST Rule, 2017 in respect of LUTs made under seven export invoices, the instant grievances raised before this court do not survive. It is now upto the petitioner to approach its jurisdictional GST authority for refund of the tax deposited and / or its reversal, which he may do so.

Supplies under notification No. 41/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 23rd October, 2017 –Non fulfillment of conditions - The petitioner sought quashing the demand notices dated 21.07.2021, 17.09.2021, 29.09.2021 and 21.02.2022 issued by the Respondent No. 2 being arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Section 73 and 74 of the Act. The petitioner has made supplies for export to respondent No.1 under notification No. 41/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 23rd October, 2017 at the rate of 0.1%. The Respondent No.1 couldn’t make the export within the time limit of 90 days as required under the Exemption notification. The GST along with Cess (as applicable) legally leviabale and payable by successful i.e. by the BHEL. The Petitioner corresponded with the Commissioner CGST with a request for extension of time limit. The court observed that the original dispute was related with the incidence of tax liability that had fallen upon the petitioner on account of delay in making export within the specified time in terms of the notification dated 23rd October, 2017. Since such extension of time has been granted now by the competent authority under CGST in terms of Rule 96A(1) (a), the instant grievances raised do not survive. It is now upto the petitioner to approach its jurisdictional GST authority for refund of the tax deposited and / or its reversal, which he may do so.

Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court directed that the claim of the petitioner for refund and / or its reversal, is to be decided by the concerned jurisdictional GST Authority of the petitioner.

The original dispute for which the petitioner came before us was the incidence of tax liability that had fallen upon the petitioner on account of delay in making export within the specified time in terms of the notification dated 23rd October, 2017. Since extension of time has been granted now by the competent authority under CGST in terms of Rule 96A(1) (a) of CGST Rule, 2017 in respect of LUTs made under seven export invoices, the instant grievances raised before this court do not survive. It is now upto the petitioner to approach its jurisdictional GST authority for refund of the tax deposited and / or its reversal, which he may do so.

Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court directed that the claim of the petitioner for refund and / or its reversal, is to be decided by the concerned jurisdictional GST Authority of the petitioner.