Assertions can't be verified in absence of documents like shipping bills for GST refund

In M/S. UPS INVERTER.COM & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. [W.P.(C) 4284/2021 dated September 09, 2021], M/S. UPS INVERTER.COM ("the Petitioner") filed petition for the grant of refund of IGST paid on goods exported by the Petitioner during the Transitional Period.

Factually,the Petitioners is the exporter of inverters, transformers, and allied products and in the course of their business, between the transitional period of the pre and post GST Regime, they had made various exports falling under Tariff Item 8504 of the Notification No. 13/2016-Cus.(N.T.) ("Customs Non-Tariff Notification") dated October 31, 2016 (as amended by Notification No. 41/2017-Cus.(N.T.) ("Customs Non-Tariff Notification") (Drawback Schedule) on the payment of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST). The Drawback schedule prescribed identical rates of Duty Drawback under Column 'A' as well as Column 'B' for the said tariff Order.

Since there were no guidelines from the GST or Customs department in respect of procedure to be followed in such cases, the Petitioner had claimed drawback under Column 'A' instead of under Column 'B'. Then, by Circular No. 37/2018-Customs dated October 09, 2018 the Tax authority ("the Respondents") have denied the refund of IGST on the ground that the exporters having filed the declarations voluntarily are deemed to have consciously relinquished their IGST/ITC claims

The Petitioners states that the issue raised in the present petition is squarely covered by the judgment of Delhi High Court in TMA International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. Wherein it was held that if the Petitioner have claimed and received only the customs duty portion of the drawback and element of IGST (earlier Central Excise Duty and Service Tax) was not included in the drawback rate, granting of IGST refund would not result in double neutralization of input taxes. The Respondents have also never intended to deny a refund of IGST paid on export in cases where only custom components were claimed as drawbacks.

On the other hand, the Respondents submitted that the present petition does not implement the jurisdictional authority that who has to verify the claim of the Petitioner. He further submits that the Petitioner have also not enclosed the relevant documents in the form of shipping bills for which the refund is claimed. He submits that in absence of these documents, the assertions made by the petitioner cannot be verified.

The Hon'ble Delhi High Court relied upon its own judgment in the case TMA International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr 

Directed

• The Respondents to carry out verification exercise of the claim made by the Petitioner within 12 weeks from today and submit a report to the Court.
• The Petitioner shall be at liberty to file the relevant documents as may be called for by the jurisdictional authority in support of its claim.
• In case the Respondents find the claim of the Petitioner to be correct, the refund shall be processed by the Respondents without awaiting further orders from this Court in accordance with the law.