Syschem India Limited Vs Union Of India

1. On the previous date i.e., 30.08.2022, we had captured the broad contours of the dispute, which remain to be adjudicated in the matter. For the sake of convenience, the said order is extracted hereafter:

“1. The petitioner, in the first instance, approached this Court for grant of refund of IGST amounting to Rs.53,97,397/-. Counsel for the petitioner informs us that this refund was sought against 17 shipping bills.

1.1. Admittedly, even according to the counsel for the petitioner, errors had crept in certain shipping bills.

2. We are informed by the counsel for the petitioner that out of the 17 shipping bills, refund has been remitted to the petitioner in respect of 16 shipping bills.

2.1. Thus, according to the counsel for the petitioner, what is outstanding is Rs.3,78,045/- concerning one (1) shipping bill.

3. Besides this, the counsel for the petitioner also seeks interest on the delayed transmission of refund of IGST. For this purpose, counsel for the petitioner seeks to place reliance on the circular dated 16.02.2021.

4. To be noted, in this matter we are concerned with Financial Year 2019-2020.

5. Mr Satish Kumar, who appears on behalf of the respondents no.2 to 11, says that he would require further time to sort out the mismatch in the information furnished by the petitioner concerning the shipping bill qua which IGST has not been refunded as yet.

5.1 On the aspect concerning interest, Mr Kumar says that the delay, if any, is attributable to the petitioner. It is only when the petitioner approached the Customs Policy Wing in terms of the circular dated 16.02.2021, that further steps could be taken for grant of interest.

6. We will examine this aspect of the matter, if necessary, on the next date of hearing, once Mr Kumar will return with instructions with regard to the outstanding shipping bill, vis-à-vis which, IGST has not been remitted to the petitioner.

7. List the matter on 17.11.2022.”

2. As would be evident, the petitioner, as on the aforesaid date, had received refund concerning 16 shipping bills, out of the 17 shipping bills.

2.1 The refund amount sought qua IGST vis-a-vis the 17 shipping bills amounts to Rs.53,97,397/-.

3. What remained, as on the aforementioned date, was the amount equal to Rs.3,78,045/- vis-a-vis one shipping bill.

4. Therefore, counsel for the petitioner says, that there are two outstanding grievances, which remain to be addressed.

4.1 First, interest has not been granted with regard to the 16 shipping bills, in respect of which refund has already been received.

4.2 Second, IGST amounting to Rs. 3,78,045/- along with applicable interest has not been refunded/remitted as yet.

5. Insofar as the second grievance is concerned, Mr Shivashish Karnani, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, does concede, that the aforementioned amount stands scrolled out, which, in effect, stands sanctioned in favour of the petitioner.

5.1 That being said, the amount has not been credited to the petitioner’s account, as of now.

6. Mr Satish Kumar, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the contesting respondents [i.e., respondent nos.2 to 11], affirms this position.

7. A perusal of paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the contesting respondents inter alia, discloses the following:

“…4. The Petitioner’s (06AAHCS0896EIZ9) request in accordance with Circular No. 4/2021 dated 16.02.2021 with recommendations to reset has been received by GSTN on 24.05.2021 from Customs Policy Wing. Upon receipt of communication from Customs Policy Wing, GSTN has processed the Petitioner’s case in terms of Customs Circular No. 4/2021, and invoice data has been transmitted to ICEGATE in Petitioner’s case….”

8. A perusal of the aforesaid averment made by the contesting respondents in the counter-affidavit is indicative of the fact, that although the Circular dated 16.02.2021 enabled correction to be made in the shipping bills, the recommendations to that effect were received from the Customs Policy Wing only on 24.05.2021.

9. That being the position, in our view, interest should accrue in favour of the petitioner, with regard to the amounts already refunded, after sixty (60) days, commencing from 24.05.2021.

10. Mr Karnani says, that the petitioner would be quite satisfied, if such a direction is issued.

11. We may also note, that we have asked the counsel for the parties about the data collated from the case papers, as to the various facets which would enable the calculation of the interest. In this behalf, the following details have been furnished to us in a tabular form:

12. As would be evident, the 17 shipping bills concern 2019.

12.1 The Customs Policy Wing made a recommendation, as noted above, on 24.05.2021.

13. In all but one case the date of receipt of payment is noted.

13.1 The only case, in which the date of payment is not noted, is the shipping bill, in which case, as noted above, the amount is scrolled out [i.e., sanctioned], but not remitted.

13.2 This shipping bill is referred to against serial no.2 in the table above.

14. Therefore, interest will be paid on the shipping bills, the details with regard to which are given against Serial Nos.1 and 3 to 17, at the rate of 6 percent p.a., commencing from 24.05.2021, till the date of remittance.

15. Insofar as the shipping bill against serial no.2 is concerned, interest will also be paid at the rate of 6 percent p.a., commencing from 24.05.2021, till the date of receipt of amount by the petitioner.

16. The contesting respondents will ensure, that the interest is paid in respect of 16 shipping bills referred to above, as expeditiously as possible, though not later than six (6) weeks from today.

17. Insofar as the details given in serial no.2 are concerned, refund along with interest will be remitted within the same timeframe.

18. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

19. Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.