Skip to content

Part-53-One Pager Snapshot to the Latest Cases

-Rejection of refund on account of availment of Higher Drawback
-Opportunity of being heard is different from opportunity of furnishing Reply
-CC account cannot be attached
-Non-Extension of Eway bill day of expiry being Saturday



Case Subject





Rejection of
refund on
account of
availment of

Sunlight Cable
Industries v.
Commissioner of
Customs [2023] 152 247

The Petitioner had availed drawback wherein both higher and lower draw back rates were same and department rejected the refund for the
month of August 2017 stating that Petitioner had availed a higher duty drawback on its exports under the Export Invoice and corresponding
Shipping Bill.
The High Court observed that rationale for not allowing the refund of IGST for those exporters, who claimed higher duty drawback was that
the higher duty drawback reflects the elements of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax taken together and since higher duty drawback
was already being availed than granting the IGST refund would amount to double benefit as the Central Excise and Service Tax had been
subsumed in the GST. Thus, drawback rates being the same, it represented only the Customs elements, which did not get
subsumed in the GST and thus, the writ-applicant could be said to have availed double benefit i.e. of the IGST refund and higher
duty drawback.
Cases Referred- Amit Cotton Industries v. Principal Commissioner of Customs 2019 (29) G.S.T.L. 200 (Guj.), Gujarat Nippon International
Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 2022 (64) G.S.T.L. 45 (Bom.), Kishan Lal Kuria Mal International v. Union of India [2023] 95 GST 177 (Delhi)



Opportunity of
being heard is
different from
opportunity of
furnishing the

Preca Solutions India
(P.) Ltd. v. Assistant
Commissioner [2023]
152 269
(Andhra Pradesh)

The petitioner had sought an opportunity of being heard personally but the order was passed without giving any such hearing. It was
contended by the department that a show-cause notice was issued and the petitioner had submitted an explanation in response to the
same therefore, it cannot be construed by any stretch of imagination that the impugned order was in violation of principles of natural justice
and in contravention of the mandatory requirements of law.
The High Court observed that petition disclosed in unequivocal terms that the petitioner made a request to the respondents to
afford an opportunity of personal hearing. Therefore, it was held that impugned order passed was not only in violation of
mandatory provisions under sub-section (4) of Section 75 of the Act, 2017, but also in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Therefore, the impugned order was liable to be set aside.



Cash Credit
account cannot

J.L. Enterprises v.
Commissioner [2023]
152 278

The petitioner had contended that the cash credit account of the petitioner was provisionally attached by the officer. This present appeal
was an intra-Court appeal directed against the order dated 25.05.2023 passed in WPA 12132 of 2023. By the said order the writ petition
was disposed of by relegating the appellant to resort to the remedy provided under Section 159(5) of Central Goods and Services Tax
Rules 2017 (for short "the Rules").
The High Court observed that it goes without saying that the Court has accepted the legal position which has been settled by various
decisions which have been referred to in the impugned order. If such be the case, no useful purpose will be served by relegating the
petitioner to avail the remedy under sub-Section 5 of Section 159 of the Rules. Therefore, the writ Court ought to have allowed the writ
petition in its entirety instead of relegating the appellant to a remedy which is inapplicable to the cases where there is an order of provision
attachment of a cash credit account. Therefore, the appeal was allowed and the order passed by the learned writ Court was set aside
insofar as it directed the appellant to avail the remedy under Sub-Section 5 of Section 159 of the Rules and in other respect where
the learned writ Court had rightly accepted the legal position stood confirmed.



of Eway bill
being day of
expiry being

Sunil Yadav v. Assistant
Commissioner [2023]
152 270

The petitioner's vehicle, bearing registration number WB33C6286 which was carrying goods covered by e-way bills was intercepted on 4th
February, 2023. The petitioner also said that under the applicable rules, the petitioner was entitled to revalidate the e-way bill within 8 hours.
from the time it lapsed and as such the time of interception was within the period. The petitioner contended that 4th February, 2023, being
Saturday and the petitioner even if had made an application for revalidation of e-way bill, the same in all likelihood would not have been
revalidated on the same date, being Saturday.
The High Court relied upon the judgement in the matter of Pushpa Devi Jain v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, Bureau of
Investigation, North Bengal Headquarters & Ors.) and set aside the detention order.