Page 121 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

2020 ] TMA INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 23
Respondents have also, infact, never intended to deny refund of IGST paid on export in
cases where only Customs component was claimed as drawback. [para 15]
GST - Implementation of - Taxpayers had difficulties in understand-
ing complex procedures and Government itself faced huge challenges - Origi-
nal model of matching of invoices for purchase could not be implemented and
truncated version of returns was introduced - Innumerable circulars and noti-
fications were issued in quick succession, extending deadlines, introduction of
fresh procedures and such other measures - Resultantly taxpayers were con-
fused despite Government efforts and influx of cases. [para 14]
Case adjourned
CASES CITED
Amit Cotton Industries v. Principal Commissioner
— 2019 (23) G.S.T.L. 463 (Guj.) — Referred ................................................................................ [Para 10]
G Nxt Power Corp v. Union of India — 2019 (29) G.S.T.L. 616 (Ker.) — Referred ......................... [Para 12]
VSG Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2019 (28) G.S.T.L. 421 (Mad.) — Referred .................. [Para 11]
DEPARTMENTAL CLARIFICATIONS CITED
C.B.I. & C. Circular No. 8/2018-Cus., dated 23-3-2018 .......................................................... [Paras 9, 11, 14]
C.B.I. & C. Circular No. 37/2018, dated 9-10-2018 ....................................................... [Paras 1, 6, 10, 11, 14]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Samar Bansal with Ms. Shakshi Singhal,
Advocates, for the Petitioner.
S/Shri Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC, Harpreet Singh,
Senior Standing Counsel, Vinod Tiwari and Ms.
Suhani Mathur, Advocates, for the Respondent.
[Order per : Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral)]. - The present petition under Ar-
ticles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks the following reliefs :
“(a) Declare that Paragraph 11(d) read with 12A(a)(ii) of the Notes and
Conditions of the Notification No. 131/2016-Cus. (N.T.), dated 31-
10-2016 [as amended by Notification No. 59/2017-Cus. (N.T.), dated
29-6-2017 and Notification No. 73/2017-Cus. (N.T.), dated 26-7-
2017] are ultra vires Section 16 of the IGST Act, 2017 read with Sec-
tion 54 of CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 96 of CGST Rules, 2017; and are
unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Con-
stitution of India & Quash the same;
(b) Declare that Circular No. 37/2018-Cus., dated 9-10-2018 is (i) ultra
vires Section 16 of the IGST Act, 2017 read with Section 54 of CGST
Act, 2017 and Rule 96 of CGST Rules, 2017, and (ii) unconstitutional
and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India &
Quash the same;
(c) As a consequence of the above, Direct Respondent Authorities to
grant refund of IGST paid on goods exported by the Petitioners dur-
ing the Transitional Period.”
2. Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 5 & 9 are private limited companies registered in
accordance with the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner Nos. 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 & 14
are partnership firms. Petitioner Nos. 7, 11 & 13 are sole proprietorships.
3. The collective grievance of the Petitioners for filing the present peti-
tion is the denial of IGST refund in accordance with Section 16(3) of the IGST Act,
2017, paid by them on goods exported during the transitional period after intro-

GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  185