The petitioner – an exporter, while seeking declaration that it is eligible for refund of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) for the exports carried out between November 2017 and August 2019, has sought for direction to the respondents to grant immediate refund of Rs.2,48,07,674/- and Rs.6,94,26,908/- in respect of Shipping Bills. The petitioner contends that details of the Shipping Bills are furnished as Annexures- G, M and N.

2. Sri. G. Shivadass, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. Amit A. Deshpande, learned counsel for the respondents, have been heard on the previous occasions. The respondents were called upon to share the reasons for the petitioner’s request for refund pending consideration in the light of the petitioner’s grievance, which was canvassed in concise by the learned Senior counsel urging that the claim for refund of Rs.2,48,07,674/- is as against those shipping bills where admittedly there is no mismatch and for the refund of Rs.6,94,26,908/- where there are certain mismatches but which could be resolved by the respondent – authorities on their own in view of Facility Circular 09/2018 dated 27.02.2018 and the Addendum dated 14.03.2018 [collectively called, ‘the Facility Circular/ Addendum’].

3. Upon the details being shared by both Air Cargo Commissionerate (ACC), Devanahalli and Inland Container Depot (ICD), Whitefield on the reasons for the mismatches and the consequential delay in refund, the petitioner has furnished certain details/explanations. Presently, Sri. G.Shivadass and Sri. Amit A. Deshpande, are heard for final disposal of the writ petition in the light of the data exchanged and their respective submissions.

4. Sri. G.Shivadass submits that it now transpires that the petitioner’s refund is held back because of the three kinds of errors, and the Facility Circular/Addendum provide for resolution of each of these errors. The three kinds of errors and the resolution for these errors as per the Facility Circular/Addendum pointed out by Sri. G.Shivadass are as follows:

[a] Because the Pay and Accounts Officer (PAC) has permanently cancelled the refund though Scroll is Generated. The PAC may have cancelled the refund despite Scroll being generated either because of SB Code error in ‘SB006M’ or ‘SB006L’ or because there could be mismatch with the accounts details between the Public Finance Management System (PFMS) and in the petitioner’s Import and Export Code [IEC]. In the case of mismatch in the account details, the Jurisdictional System Manager will have to write to ICEGATE helpdesk for reconciliation and Scroll cancellation as mentioned in the Addendum dated 14.03.2018.

In the case of ‘SB006M’ and ‘SBOO6L’ errors, the Facility Circular specifically states that an option is now made available for AC (Exports) of ICDs to rectify Gateway EGM errors upon verification of transference copies, the shipping bills and the sailing details and upon satisfaction of the actual export of the goods out of India. It is submitted that this error can be thus resolved. [b] Because the Scroll is not ready:

This could only be because of mismatch in the accounts details between the details available with the PFMS and ICEs. In that event also, in terms of Addendum dated 14.03.2018, the Jurisdictional System Manager will have to write to ICEGATE helpdesk for reconciliation and Scroll cancellation as mentioned in the Addendum dated 14.03.2018.

[c] The petitioner has wrongly indicated that the export is as against the Letter of Undertaking though the export is on payment of GST:

These errors will have to be handled in consonance with paragraph No.2(ii) of Circular No. 5/2018 dated 23.02.2018 on verification of actual IGST payment in GST returns with each invoice as displayed in the Officer interface and enter admissible IGST refund account.

5. Sri. G. Shivadass submits that with the Facility Circular/Addendum thus categorically providing for resolution, neither the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore City Commissionerate nor the Commissioner of Customs Airport/ACC Commissionerate, nor the Commissioner of Customs, Customs ICD [the second to fourth respondents) could have waited for the petitioner to approach this Court with the present petition.

6. In addition, Sri. G. Shivadass submits that the request for refund on account of zero-rated supply of goods or services or both made by registered persons must be necessarily considered within the time line contemplated under Sections 54(5) and 54(7) of the Central Goods And Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, ‘the CGST Act’) and insofar as the provisional refund, 90% of the total amount claimed could be granted subject to terms and conditions. The petitioner in all these years has been denied the benefit of both the provisional refund of 90% of the total amount due and the final orders of refund. Therefore, this Court must intervene and direct the respondents to take expedited decision both as regards provisional refund as contemplated under Section 54(6) of CGST Act and also on final orders on the refund of the amount.

7. Sri. Amit A. Deshpande, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that though the effort is to see that there is faceless resolution of all claims for refund, the Officers concerned will have to call for necessary details especially when the transaction is over a period of time. The petitioner’s request for final decision on the refund would be considered by the concerned with due opportunity to the petitioner to present its case to explain the mismatch. He submits that insofar as the mismatches relating to Inland Container Depot, Whitefield and Bangalore City Commissionerate, Mr. Rajiv Kittur will be the Nodal Officer who could extend such opportunity to the petitioner. Insofar as the Air Cargo Commissionerate, Devanahalli, the Nodal Officer would be Ms. Madhulatha, and this officer will also extend due opportunity.

8. Sri. Amit A. Deshpande also submits that if the petitioner’s authorized representative appear before these Nodal Officers on the day notified by this Court, the petitioner’s authorized representative would be heard and the explanation offered to resolve the mismatch issues in terms of the Facility Circular 09/2018 dated 27.02.2018 and the Addendum thereto dated 14.03.2018. The Nodal Officers will also consider the request in this regard in the light of any further Circulars that may be issued.

9. Insofar as the petitioner’s request for refund, Sri. Amit A. Deshpande submits that the jurisdiction of the Customs Officers to decide on the claim for refund under Sections 54(6) of the CGST Act would require elaborate submissions and really, the concerned Authorities are not arrayed as parties. As such, there should not be any directions to the aforesaid Nodal officers to decide on the provisional refund or the payment of interest.

10. On a careful consideration of the rival submissions, this Court is of the considered opinion that, keeping open all questions on the mismatches for decision by the Nodal Officer now suggested by Sri. Amit A. Deshpande, the petition must be disposed of directing the aforesaid Nodal Officers to consider the petitioner’s request for resolving the mismatch issues. The jurisdiction of the Customs Officers to decide on the claim for provisional refund and payment of interest under the provisions of the CGST Act would be a moot question, as the reasons for mismatches are yet to be resolved pursuant to this Court’s order. But, as the provisional refund and payment of interest would be subject to resolving the issues around the mismatches now discussed or if any other, there should be no inhibition in law for the aforesaid Nodal officers, as they examine the resolution of the mismatches, to decide on the recommendations in this regard. As such, the following:

ORDER

a. The petitioner’s authorized representative shall appear before Mr. Rajiv Kittur, the Nodal Officer for the Inland Container Depot, Whitefield on 25.04.2022 at 10:30 a.m., and the petitioner’s authorized representative shall be heard on the mismatches pending before the Bangalore City Commissionerate and Inland Container Depot by this Nodal Officer;

b. The petitioner’s authorized representative shall appear before Ms. Madhulatha, the Nodal Officer with the Air Cargo Commissionerate on 26.04.2022 at 10:30 a.m., and the petitioner shall be heard on the mismatches pending before the Air Cargo Commissionerate;

c. Both the Nodal Officers shall ensure that appropriate decision is taken on the explanations offered by the petitioner within four [4] weeks from the respective dates of opportunity viz., 25.04.2022 and 26.04.2022;

d. The Nodal Officers shall also in the meanwhile consider recommendations for provisional refund and the terms and conditions therefor, depending upon the explanation offered by the petitioner, as the same could facilitate a decision as contemplated under the provisions of Section 54(6) of the CGST Act.

e. It would be needless to observe that if there is any cause for the petitioner either because of the decision of the Nodal Officers or lack of decision by them, the petitioner, subject to all just exceptions, would be at liberty to approach this Court.