Page 67 - GSTL_23rd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 4

2020 ] SHREE NANAK FERRO ALLOYS PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 393
that eventually, if the Court does not accept the petitioner’s contention not-
ed above, then the petitioner shall furnish the remaining Bank Guarantee.
5. Direct service for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 is permitted.”
5. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
there is no provision for levy of IGST either on the imported goods or the export-
ed goods under the provision of Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. He
therefore submitted that the insistence on the part of the respondent No. 3 to fur-
nish the bank guarantee of 25% on the amount of IGST is without any basis.
6. On the other-hand, Mr. Jaimin Gandhi, the Learned Counsel appear-
ing for the respondents submitted the adjudication proceedings is not yet com-
pleted and whether the IGST is leviable on imported goods is yet to be decided
by the authority.
7. Be that as it may be, as this Court vide order dated 9th August, 2018
has directed the respondent No. 2 to permit the petitioner to re-export the goods
on furnishing the 25% of the customs duty leviable on re-determined value of
goods, then the respondent No. 2 is not entitled to ask for bank guarantee on the
amount of IGST on redetermined value of goods.
8. In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The impugned
communication dated 7th September, 2018 is hereby quashed and set aside. It is
declared that the petitioner is not liable to furnish the bank guarantee of
Rs. 15,20,183/- for releasing the goods for re-export, as asked by the respondent
No. 3. However, it is clarified that respondent-authority may adjudicate the issue
of levy of IGST in the pending proceedings in accordance with law.
9. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to cost.

________

2020 (35) G.S.T.L. 393 (Jhar.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
H.C. Mishra and Deepak Roshan, JJ.
SHREE NANAK FERRO ALLOYS PVT. LTD.

Versus
UNION OF INDIA
W.P. (T) No. 2246 of 2019, decided on 18-12-2019
Demand and interest - Tax wrongfully collected and paid to Central
Government - Admittedly, the petitioner-Company discharged their tax liabil-
ity under IGST head, but inadvertently or otherwise, the petitioner deposited
the amount under CGST head - Petitioner-Company neither concealed the
transaction nor committed any fraud in discharging its tax liability - Bona
fides of the petitioner-Company not in doubt, there being some confusion in
initial stage of the CGST regime, and cash wrongly deposited in the wrong
electronic cash ledger - Petitioner entitled to refund of the amount of tax, i.e.,
` 41,98,642 deposited by them under the CGST head, under Section 77(1) of
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Section 19(2) of Integrated
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Petitioner-Company directed to deposit the
GST LAW TIMES  23rd April 2020  187