2020(07)LCX0014

Delhi High Court

MEDICAL BUREA

Versus

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DELHI NORTH & ORS.

W.P.(C) 3917/2020 decided on 03/07/2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P.(C) 3917/2020

MEDICAL BUREA ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahna with Mr. Ruchir Bhatia and Mr. Ramanand Roy, Advocates

versus

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DELHI NORTH & ORS. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel for R-1 to 3.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R
03.07.2020

CM APPL. 14011/2020

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 3917/2020

The petition has been listed before this Bench by the Registry in view of the urgency expressed therein. The same has been heard by way of video conferencing.

By way of the present writ petition, petitioner challenges the order dated 01st June, 2020 whereby the respondents have denied refund due to the petitioner in spite of the fact that the petitioner had made exports of goods outside India and such exports are regarded as zero rated supplies under Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short IGST Act) on which the petitioner was entitled to refund of input tax credit under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short CGST Act).

Learned counsel for petitioner states that refund has been denied to the petitioner on the sole ground that petitioner had exported goods through foreign Post Offices, while Notification dated 04th June, 2018 read with Circular No.14/2018-Customs dated 04th June, 2018 has notified Exports by Post Regulations, 2018 w.e.f. 21st June, 2018 which provides for an entry to be presented to proper officer at the foreign Post Office of clearance. He submits that the said Notification in no manner whatsoever affects supplies to be regarded as zero rated under Section 16 of the IGST Act read with Section 54 of the CGST Act. He contends that the new procedure for filing postal bill of export does not take away the substantive right to claim refund of input tax credit in respect of zero rated supplies under the statute.

Issue notice.

Mr. Harpreet Singh, learned senior standing counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3. He states that the Commissioner of Customs arrayed in the present petition as respondent no. 4 is neither a necessary nor a proper party. Accordingly, respondent no. 4 is deleted from the array of parties. Let an amended memo of parties be filed within one week.

Mr. Harpreet Singh prays for and is permitted to file a counteraffidavit within four weeks.

Rejoinder, if any, be filed within a further period of four weeks.

List on 9th September, 2020.

The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.

MANMOHAN, J

SANJEEV NARULA, J

JULY 03, 2020

Equivalent .