Page 45 - GSTL_23rd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 4

2020 ] REAL PRINCE SPINTEX PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 371
3.6 It is the case of the writ-applicants that from July, 2017 onwards till
the letter of undertaking was obtained, they had exported goods on payment of
the IGST. According to the writ-applicants, under a misconception of law, they
selected the option of export without payment of tax while filing the shipping
bills though the writ-applicants, at the relevant point of time, had no letter of
undertaking, and simultaneously, also claimed higher rate of duty drawback un-
der the Customs Act, 1962.
3.7 However, according to the writ-applicants, the IGST was paid on
the exports along with the returns filed in the Form GSTR-3B.
3.8 It is the case of the writ-applicants that since the clearing and for-
warding agent had erroneously selected the option of export without payment of
tax while filing the shipping bill, the amount of the IGST paid was shown as ‘Nil’
in the shipping bill. In such circumstances, the customs authorities denied to
grant refund of the IGST paid on exports by the writ-applicants.
3.9 In the aforesaid context, number of representations were filed be-
fore the Customs Authorities.
3.10 According to the writ-applicants, the respondents have not re-
sponded to the representations so far. In spite of the repeated requests, the re-
fund of the IGST paid on the exports, during the period between July and Sep-
tember, 2017 has not been granted.
4. In such circumstances, the writ-applicants are here before this Court
with the present Writ Application.
5. Mr. Uchit N. Sheth, the Learned Counsel appearing for the writ-
applicants, submitted that the issue raised in this Writ Application is no longer
res integra in view of the decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Amit Cotton
Industries v. Principal Commissioner of Customs [Special Civil Application No.
20126 of 2018, decided on 27th June, 2019] [2019 (29) G.S.T.L. 200 (Guj.)].
6. According to Mr. Sheth, this Court, in the case of M/s. Amit Cotton
Industries (Supra), has taken the view that the refund of the IGST paid on the ex-
ports cannot be denied on the ground that the higher rate of duty drawback is
claimed.
7. Mr. Nirzar Desai, the Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondents, submitted that the Union has looked into the judgment delivered
by this Court in the case of M/s. Amit Cotton Industries (Supra). According to Mr.
Desai, the issue is squarely covered by the dictum as laid in the said judgment.
8. In the case of M/s. Amit Cotton Industries (supra), this Court held as
under :
“23. Section 16 of the IGST Act, 2017, referred to above provides for zero
rating of certain supplies, namely exports, and supplies made to the Special
Economic Zone Unit or Special Economic Zone Developer and the manner
of zero rating.
24. It is not in dispute that the goods in question are one of zero-rated
supplies. A registered person making zero-rated supplies is eligible to claim
refund under the options as provided in sub-clauses (a) and (b) to clause (3)
of Section 16 referred to above.
25. Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017, provides that any person claiming
refund of any tax and interest, if any, paid on such tax or any other amount
paid by him, shall make an application before the expiry of two years from
GST LAW TIMES  23rd April 2020  165