In this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:

“(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or order in the nature of Certiorari to quash the letter C.No.VIII/20/02/2020 ICD-IGST (pt file) dated 27.09.2021 issued by the 1^st Respondent; (ANNEXURE-B).”

(ii) Issue Writ of Mandamus or a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the 2^nd Respondent to consider the letter dated 17.12.2021 and sanction the refund of IGST of Rs.20,54,75.04 with interest in terms of rule 96 of CGST Rules, 2017 R/witness Section 16 of IGST Act, 2017; (ANNEXUREC) or

(iii) Issue any other Writ, Order or direction on the Respondents as this Hon’ble court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the Memorandum of Petition and referring to the documents produced by the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the impugned communication at Annexure–B dated 27.09.2021 in order to point out that the said impugned letter is not only contrary to the provisions of the circular dated 09.10.2018 but the same has also failed to consider the specific claim of the petitioner that he is entitled to refund of IGST since the said circular is not applicable to the petitioner and issue of claim of higher duty drawback by the petitioner is between the petitioner and the customs authority and the same cannot be the basis by the respondents to decline grant of refund of ISGT paid by him.

4. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following statutory provisions, circulars and judgments:

1. Provision of Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017, Rule 96 of CGST Rules, 2017 and Section 16 of IGST, 2017.

2. M/s. Amit Cotton Industries v. Principal Commissioner of customs reported in 2019 (7) TMI-472-Gujarat High Court.

3. Jal Engineering v. UOI reported in 2022 (2) TMI 441-Gujarat High Court.

4. G Nxt Power Corp. v. UOI reported in 2019(9) TMI 515 reported in Kerala High Court.

5. M/s.Precot Meridian Ltd. V. The Commissioner of Customs reported in 2020 (1) TMI 90- Madras High Court.

6. Modern India Products v. The Asst. Commissioner of Customs reported in 2021 (4) TMI 1213 – Madras High Court.

7. M/s.Raj Exim v. The Asst. Commissioner of Customs reported in 2021 (4) TMI 1212 – Madras High Court.

8. Circular No.37/2018 – Customs dated 09.10.2018.

9. Notification No.131/2016-Customs (NT) dated 31.10.2016.

10. Numinous Impex (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin reported in 2022 (4) TMI 760 – Madras High Court.

According to the petitioner, the circular dated 09.10.2018 is not applicable insofar as petitioner is concerned.

5. Per contra, in addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the statement of objections, learned counsel for the respondent submits that undisputedly the petitioner has claimed higher duty drawback in the first instance and merely reversing the same on 15.12.2021 subsequently will not enure to the benefit of the petitioner to claim refund of the ISGT paid by him. It is also submitted that the petitioner has violated the terms and condition of notification No.131/2016 dated 31.10.2016 and on this ground also the claim for refund put forth by the petitioner is liable to be rejected. It is therefore submitted that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. Perusal of the material on record including the impugned letter at Annexure – B dated 27.09.2021 would indicate that the specific contention urged by the petitioner in relation to his request for entitlement to refund of IGST paid by him on export of goods has not been considered by the respondents who have merely rejected the same by placing reliance upon circular No.37/2018 dated 09.10.2018 and not adverting to the other contentions of the petitioner with regard to his entitlement for refund.

7. Under these circumstances, in the light of the circular dated 09.10.2018 and notification dated 31.10.2016 and the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned letter at Annexure – B dated 27.09.2021 and remit the matter back to the respondents for reconsideration afresh bearing in mind the material on record as well as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, notification and circular etc., in accordance with law.

8. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) Petition is hereby allowed.

ii) The impugned letter Annexure – B dated 27.09.2021 is set aside.

iii) The matter is remitted back to the concerned respondent for reconsideration afresh bearing in mind the material on record relied upon including the circular, notification, judgments etc., relied by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit additional pleadings, documents, citations etc., before the concerned respondent.