GST – Bombay High Court: EOUs aren’t automatically denied IGST refunds under Rule 96(10); refund can’t be withheld without evidence of double benefit [Order attached]

Your free trial / membership plan is expired.
Kindly subscribe to get complete access to indirect tax updates and issue wise cases
Why subscribe to us ?
Get complete access to news updates and download copy of case laws/ notification/ circular etc.
Be a part of our WhatsApp group and read real time indirect tax updates
Access to ready case laws of General Issues and Industry Wide Issues under GST
Access to relevant provisions of law / circular in respect to the issues, along with trail of their amendments
Write your GST query to us for evaluation
Subscription Charges:*
Indirect tax updates -
6 months @299 / 1 Year @499 only
Indirect tax updates + Issue wise cases -
6 months @1199 / 1 Year @1999 only
*Plus applicable GST
Admin
05-Jul-2025 11:41:05
Order Date – 07 May 2025
Parties: Power Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.
Facts –
- The Petitioner, Power Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd., claimed refund of IGST paid on exported goods under Section 54 of the CGST Act read with Rule 96 of the CGST Rules.
- The Department denied refund of the IGST paid on exports, invoking Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, alleging violation since the Petitioner availed duty-free imports.
- The Petitioner challenged the denial, claiming that benefit under Notification Nos. 78/2017 and 79/2017 does not disentitle it from IGST refund on exports.
Issue –
- Whether an EOU that imports goods without payment of IGST under Notification No. 78/2017-Cus. is barred by Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules from claiming IGST refund ?
Order –
- The Divisional Bench of Hon’ble High Court observed that had the petitioner being issued a show cause notice as contemplated under sub-section (1) of Section 73, and determination of this show cause notice pursuant to the representation/stand adopted by the petitioner, all the issues pertaining to the applicability of Rule 96 (10) of the CGST Rules 2017 would have been open for consideration by the concerned officer.
- However, since the impugned order has straight away drawn a conclusion that the petitioner had wrongly availed refund, which is liable to be recovered from it along with interest and penalty under Section 74 of the CGST Act 2017, in absence of adhering to the procedure prescribed under the Act of 2017 to be read along with Rules 2017, the court satisfied that the necessary procedure to be followed before the demand is raised and the recovery is ordered, has not been adhered with.
- In the wake of the aforesaid without touching into the other issues which are raised in the petition particularly the validity of Rule 96 (10) of the CGST Rules, 2017 as well as its applicability in the case of the petitioner and by keeping this issue open, the court quash and set aside the impugned order dated 10.07.2024 by giving liberty to the Revenue to follow the procedure under Sections 73 and 74 of the Act of 2017, to be initiated by the issuance of show cause notice pursuant to which the petitioner shall be afforded with an opportunity to submit its representation, which shall be subjected to adjudication by the proper officer in accordance with law.
- Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms.
Related Post
Post Category
Your free trial/ membership plan has expired. Kindly subscribe to get complete access of tax news updates.
Why subscribe to us ?
Get complete access to news updates
Access to the Order Copy of the case law/ Notification/ Circular etc
Be a part of our Whatsapp group and read real time tax updates
Access to ready case laws/ circulars on general and industry-wide issues under GST
Submit your GST issues to us for evaluation