Page 126 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

28 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
is not applicable to cases where duty drawback has been claimed under Column
B, exporters would have received IGST refund also on mentioning “B”. There-
fore, exporters did not have any benefit in claiming drawback under Column A.
It is not pointed out by the Respondents that the Petitioners derived any undue
advantage by their aforesaid mistake. On the contrary, it would result in causing
loss for the value of the IGST paid on exports. By way of illustration, we take
note of one such instance as pointed out by Mr. Bansal that if Steel Strips (HSN-
7211) are exported then whether duty drawback is claimed under Column A or
Column B, the rate is 2%. However, rate of IGST on the said export is 18%. In
such a situation under no circumstances it can be assumed that the exporters in-
tentionally decided to claim duty drawback should forego IGST refund. Besides,
if the petitioners 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 neutralisation of input taxes. Respondents have also, infact, never intend-
ed to deny refund of IGST paid on export in cases where only custom component
was claimed as drawback.
16. The Petitioners have enclosed the cost analysis which captures the
denial of IGST refund causing severe financial crunch to the exporters business.
The impact is significant. To us such an error, that is purely inadvertent and not
intentional, should not come in the way of calming refund of IGST. We have also
noticed that the respondents have also been alive to the situation and in matters
relating to technical glitches, they have constituted IT Redressal Grievance
Committees to address the grievances of the taxpayers. Therefore, we do not see
any reason as to why the Petitioners should not be extended similar benefit.
Since the Respondents have expressed their apprehension about double benefit
of neutralisation of taxes, it would be appropriate that before issuing final direc-
tions, Respondents verify the extent of the duty drawback availed by the Peti-
tioners and also whether they have availed duty drawback/Cenvat credit of
Central Excise and Service Tax component in respect of the exports made by
them.
17. Mr. Harpreet Singh, Learned Senior Standing Counsel has stated
that the Petitioners are registered with several different Commissionerate and
this exercise would entail verification at different locations and request for suffi-
cient time to complete this exercise. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstanc-
es, we direct the Respondents to carry out the verification within a period of
twelve weeks from today and submit a report qua each of the Petitioners. The
Respondents will take into considerations the annexures enclosed with the peti-
tion which capture the details of the exports and the taxes paid.
18. In case the Petitioners would not have availed the benefit of duty
drawback/Cenvat credit of Central Excise and Service Tax component, necessary
directions would be issued.
19. List on 27th April, 2020.

_______

GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  190