The Hon’ble Madras High Court of Madurai Bench in the case of M/s Modern India Products v. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs House IGST Section & Ors. [Writ Appeal (MD) No. 1559 of 2021 dated February 21, 2025], allowed refund claim by the assessee of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (“the IGST”) refund for exports that would qualify as zero -rated supply. While Circular No. 37/2018-Customs dated October 09, 2018 (“the Circular”) relied upon by Standing Counsel to state that if duty drawback is claimed, refund of IGST amount cannot be sought. The Court relied on the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court case wherein it was held that the Circular cannot prevail over Rule 96 of the CGST Rules.
Facts:
M/s Modern India Products (“the Petitioner”) is an exporter of goods known as “absorbent gauze roll”. The export was made on September 26, 2017. The goods were valued at Rs.12,72,827/- and the Petitioner paid a sum of Rs.2,54,449/- towards IGST.
The Petitioner contends that the exports would come under zero rated supply and they are entitled to refund of the IGST amount in terms of Sections 16 and 54 of the IGST Act read with Rule 96 of CGST Rules.
When the Petitioner applied for refund, it was not acted upon. Hence the Petitioner filed W.P(MD)No.9796 of 2020. The writ petition was allowed by the learned single bench on April 17, 2021.Hence, aggrieved by the circumstances, the present intra-court appeal has been filed by the Petitioner.
Issue:
Whether refund of IGST can be sought if duty drawback is claimed?
Held:
The Hon’ble Madras High Court of Madurai Bench in Writ Application (MD) No. 1559 of 2021 held as under:
- Noted that, the Circular states that if duty drawback is claimed, refund of IGST amount cannot be sought.
- Relied on, M/s. Amit Cotton Industries v. Principal Commissioner of Customs [R/Special Civil Application No. 20126 of 2018 dated June 27, 2018] wherein the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court held that the Circular cannot prevail over Rule 96 of the CGST Rules. The Hon’ble Division Bench observed that the circular will not save the situation for the Department. This decision was followed by the Madras High Court in the decision reported in M/s. Precot Meridian Limited v. The Commissioner of Customs, The Assistant Commissioner of Customs[W.P. (MD) No. 20504 of 2019 dated November 19, 2019].
- Held that, several other High Courts have taken the very same view. Since the single Judge bench granted relief to the Petitioner only by following the existing legal position, interference with the said order is not warranted.
Our Comments:
Duty Drawback scheme was introduced by the Ministry of Finance as a rebate for duty chargeable on any imported materials or excisable materials used in manufacture or processing of goods, manufactured in India and exported. The exported products are revenue natural. The Central Government is empowered to grant Duty Drawback under section 74 and 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 (“the Customs Act”). Section 74 of the Customs Act discusses about drawback allowable on re-export of duty-paid goods, wherein duty drawback to the extent of 98% of the duty paid on imported goods can be claimed for re-export, provided the goods are re-exported within two years of payment of import duty. Further, Section 75 of the Customs Act discusses about drawback on imported materials used in the manufacture of goods which are exported, it empowers duty drawback on export of manufactured articles.
The Duty Drawback are of three types:
- All Industry Rates
- Brand Rates
- Special Brand Rates
No amendments have been made to the drawback provisions under the Customs Act in the GST regime.
In the Pari Materia case of Intec Export India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [W.P. (C) 9065/2023 dated October 30, 2023], the Hon’ble Delhi High Court directed the Revenue to refund IGST despite higher duty drawback selection where column A and B provided identical rates.
CLICK HERE FOR OFFICIAL JUDGMENT COPY
(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
