Relief to Lenovo India: Madras HC Directs Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise to issue  refund of IGST within 30 days [Read Order]

In a significant case, the Madras High Court, while granting relief to Lenovo India, directed the Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise to issue a refund of Integrated Goods and Service Tax (IGST) within 30 days.

The petitioner, Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd., is engaged in the manufacture/import of computers (Desktops/Laptops, etc.) and supplying the said goods and related services to units in Special Economic Zones. The petitioner filed applications under Section 16 of the IGST Act read with Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) read with Rule 89 of CGST Rules, 2017, claiming a refund of IGST paid for the months of December 2019, January 2020, and February 2020.

However, the petitioner's applications have been rejected in part by the second respondent through the Order-in-Original. When the petitioner appealed before the first respondent/Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority also confirmed the order passed by the second respondent through the Order-in-Appeal. To challenge the above appeal, the petitioner filed the writ petition before the court.

Raghavan Ramabadran, counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner, a Domestic Tariff Unit (DTA Unit), filed applications for a refund through the GSTN Portal, claiming a refund of IGST paid along with required declarations and undertakings, including Statement-4, and copies of tax invoices with endorsements made by the Specified/Authorized Officer in respective SEZ for the supply of goods/services to SEZ units during the months of December 2019, January 2020, and February 2020.

The respondent's counsel argued that the reasons for the rejection of the refund claim are on the grounds i) Inordinate delay in obtaining the endorsements, ii) POD not at the time of filing the application but only at the time of the personal hearing, and hence, the claim is barred by limitation, and iii) Mismatch in the Statement-4, which cannot be relied on, and the claim is rejected.

After analyzing the facts and arguments of both parties, the single bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that the first and second respondents have committed a serious flaw in the decision-making process. Therefore, the impugned orders have to be held to be unsustainable. Thus, the bench directed the second respondent, Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, to issue a refund of Integrated Goods and Service Tax (IGST) within 30 days. Therefore, the bench allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates