Venus Jewel v. UOI - Taxpublishers.in

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers 2024 TaxPub(GST) 926 (Bom-HC) IN THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT G. S. KULKARNI & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. Venus Jewel v. UOI Writ Petition No. 5072 of 2022 8 April, 2024 Petitioner by: Parisha Shah a/w. Rajesh Shah i/b. Arsil Shah. Respondents by: Jitendra B. Mishra a/w. Dhananjay B. Deshmukh. JUDGMENT *G. S. Kulkarni, J.* Rule, made returnable forthwith. Respondents waives service. By consent of the parties, heard finally. 2. By this petition under article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner assails the refusal of the respondents-GST authorities to grant to the petitioner refund of Integrated Goods and Service Tax (for short IGST) paid by the petitioner, in respect of confirmed exports to the tune of Rs. 5,26,80,126 between the period of July, 2017 to December, 2018 (for short the said period). The petitioners application for refund has been rejected by the impugned order dated 11-7-2022, which according to the petitioner, is per se illegal on several counts. Further even the refund application filed by the petitioner under section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, CGST Act) being rejected by respondent no. 4 is assailed by the petitioner. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers 2024 TaxPub(GST) 926 (Bom-HC)

IN THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT

G. S. KULKARNI & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.

Venus Jewel v. UOI

Writ Petition No. 5072 of 2022

8 April, 2024

Petitioner by: Parisha Shah a/w. Rajesh Shah i/b. Arsil Shah.

Respondents by: Jitendra B. Mishra a/w. Dhananjay B. Deshmukh.

JUDGMENT

G. S. Kulkarni, J.

Rule, made returnable forthwith. Respondents waives service. By consent of the parties, heard finally.

2. By this petition under article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner assails the refusal of the respondents-GST authorities to grant to the petitioner refund of Integrated Goods and Service Tax (for short IGST) paid by the petitioner, in respect of confirmed exports to the tune of Rs. 5,26,80,126 between the period of July, 2017 to December, 2018 (for short the said period). The petitioners application for refund has been rejected by the impugned order dated 11-7-2022, which according to the petitioner, is per se illegal on several counts. Further even the refund application filed by the petitioner under section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, CGST Act) being rejected by respondent no. 4 is assailed by the petitioner.