Order Date: 22 February 2023

Parties: APEX FORMULATIONS PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Facts – 

• The Petitioner, APEX FORMULATIONS PVT LTD, purchased raw materials on which the applicable tax rate under the GST Acts is 18%. The finished goods sold by the petitioner attract a tax rate of 12%. Further, he also sells goods to exporters for which a concessional rate of tax of 0.1% is applicable. The output tax rate of the petitioner is lower than the tax rate on inputs and the petitioner falls under an inverted duty structure.
• The petitioner exported certain goods through a valid Exporter and, therefore, applied for a refund under Rule 89(5) and also submitted documents in support of the refund claim.
• The CGST department being dissatisfied with the said refund order preferred an appeal on the ground that the Exporter had not mentioned the name and GSTIN of the petitioner and was not mentioned in the shipping bill which was an essential condition. Commissioner Appeals rejected the refund claim.
• Hence the present petition.

Issue –

• Whether the petitioner is liable for the refund?

Orders – 

• The Court observed that initially, the Exporter to whom the petitioner has sold the goods had not mentioned the name and GSTIN of the petitioner. Subsequently, at the request of the petitioner, the correct form was submitted by the Exporter to the authority, and, therefore, this aspect was required to be considered by the Appellate Authority which is essentially not done.
• The Court stated it would be open for the petitioner to file additional documents, if any, along with an affidavit in support of its claim of refund before the Appellate Authority.
• The Court stated that the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside. The present petition is allowed.