Order Date – 20 January 2023

Parties: Mobile Shoppe Vs Union of India

Facts –

• The Petitioner, Mobile Shoppe, is engaged in export of Mobile Phones. It received purchase orders for mobile phones from foreign buyers. The petitioner buys the mobile phones through its sister concerned M/s.Anjalli Enterprise.
• On a search conducted in the premises of the petitioner the query was raised regarding refund claimed by the petitioner on export. There being a single movement of the goods from the premise of vendor of M/s.Anjali Enterprise to the airport, only one e-way bill was generated by such vendor. 
• It was alleged that there were some doubt with regard to e-way bills and refund could not be allowed. 

Issue –

• Whether the petitioner is entitled to Refund? Whether the respondent have the jurisdiction to deny the IGST refund?

Order –

• The Hon’ble High Court observed that press release of 23.4.2018 in relation to the one e-way bill were required for transaction to ship to basis insisting that this is binding to the respondent. The Custom Authority having permitted the goods to be exported and the petitioner having paid the IGST on the export, the process of the refund on such IGST after clearance of the goods for export is what is being provided as Rule 96 is very clear that shipping bill of the export needs to be treated as the refund application.
• It was noticed that no show cause notice till date is issued in this case. Noticing the fact that the e-way bill once is generated the export cannot be disputed and if there is any doubt as regard to the export of the goods, it is for the Custom Authority to take up the issue.
• There was no ambiguity in relation to the consignment except the wrong declaration of the address in the export documents i.e. Export Invoice Shipping Bill. The inquiry pertaining to ITC Chain was therefore, directed to be investigated by the office of the Joint Commissioner of CGST. This had made the petitioner to rush to this Court seeking to challenge this alleged action of respondent being high handed and not permitting the Rule 96 to come into operation.
• It was held that when the export has been permitted by all concerned on the part of the respondents, the petitioner would become entitled to the refund and the same shall be paid with interest to the petitioner.