Section 16 of the IGST Act, 2017— Refund -– The principal grievance is that the proceedings for scrutiny of refund of IGST for the export already made by the petitioner is initiated by the CGST Department even though the proper officer for grant of refund of IGST is the Custom Authorities and therefore, initiation of the actions on the part of the respondent is bad in law. This continuous scrutiny on the part of the respondent is wholly without jurisdiction and not sustainable under the law. The court observed that the respondents questioning the e-way bills in support of purchase from its sister concern. No show cause notice till date has been issued. The respondent No.2 had informed the Customs Authority that the refund of IGST paid on export should not be processed. On the ground that there were some doubt with regard to e-way bills respondent No.2 needed to interrogate the writ applicant. At the instance of respondent No.2, the Custom Authority had detained the goods which were to be exported but later they were permitted to be cleared and those goods were actually exported. Thus, there was no ambiguity in relation to the consignment except the wrong declaration of the address in the export documents.

Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court directed that when the export has been permitted by all concerned on the part of the respondents, the petitioner would become entitled to the refund and the same shall be paid with interest to the petitioner and to complete the investigation, within eight weeks’ period. If at the end of the investigation nothing is found, without any further requirement of the petitioner moving any authority, the same shall be remitted to the petitioner in his account through RTGS with interest.