Order date – 05 September 2022

Facts – 

• The Respondent, M/S Bushrah Export House Two Star Lucknow And Anr, moved an application seeking refund of the CGST through their application dated 20.02.2020 claiming an amount of Rs.1,84,17,252/- on the tax paid inputs of the Goods, which was ultimately exported by the respondents. 
• It is claimed that after verifying the claims, an acknowledgment was issued to the respondents and a provisional order dated 04.03.2020 allowing partial refund amounting to Rs.1,65,75,526.80 was granted on a provisional basis out of the total refund claimed.
• The department was of the view that the provisional refund granted to the respondents was erroneous refund, therefore, a show cause notice dated 07.04.2020 was issued.
• The respondents aggrieved argued that the inputs received by the respondents were sent from Surat to the warehouse of the respondents at Surat where they were processed and subsequently the goods were exported through ICD Kanpur after transporting the goods from Surat to Kanpur. 
• They placed reliance upon the notification No.GSL/GST/Rule-138 (14)/B.19 dated 19.09.2018 issued by the Commissioner of State Tax, Gujarat State Ahmadabad wherein it was declared that providing that e-way bill was not required to be generated for intra-city movement of any goods irrespective of the value.
• The authorities allowed the contention of respondent and directed to sanction the refund of amount of Rs.18,41,725/- to the Petitioner.
• Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a petition.

Issue – 

• Whether allegation of availing benefit of irregular Input Tax Credit (ITC) since the goods were exported without generation of e-way bill is justifiable?

Order – 

• The Court observed that the show cause notice is confined to the allegations against the respondents receiving the supplies of goods without the e-way bills, which fact has been dealt with by the appellate authority after perusing the invoices that the goods were supplied to the respondents from Surat to Surat and thus, the notification dated 19.09.2018 was clearly in favour of the respondents. 
• In the present case, no allegations were levelled in the show cause notice to the effect that the respondents had transferred the finished goods for export from Surat to Kanpur without e-way bill are without any foundation and thus liable to be rejected.
• Since the goods were received by the respondents within the same city, there was no requirement of generation of e-way bills as provided under the notification dated 19.09.2018, it has not been shown to be perverse or in any way arbitrary or illegal in the arguments.
• Therefore the court held that the writ petition lacks merit hence dismissed.