Import of gold bars under Advance Authorisation does not require payment of IGST for clearance.

Case Title: Jindal Dyechem Industries (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India

Court: High Court of Delhi

Petition Number: W.P. (C) No. 8677 of 2017, C.M. No. 35637 of 2017 (Stay)

Category of Dispute: Refund / Exemption under Advance Authorization Scheme

Date of Judgment / Order: 11 October 2017

Relevant Section: Section 147 of the CGST Act, 2017

Takeaway: Advance Authorization vs. IGST Burden: When Policy Promises Outrun Implementation

Facts of the Case

1. The petitioner, Jindal Dyechem Industries (P.) Ltd., imported gold bars under a valid Advance Authorization (AA) scheme post-GST implementation (para 3).
2. Despite a GST Council press release dated 6th October 2017 announcing exemption/relief for AA/EPCG/EOU holders—including no upfront IGST liability—the petitioner was compelled to pay ₹58,58,345 as IGST on 10th October 2017 to clear the imported goods (para 3).
3. The petitioner protested this payment, claiming denial of benefits as per GST Council’s decision and sought judicial relief (para 3).

Questions in Consideration

1. Whether the petitioner was liable to pay IGST on imports under Advance Authorizations issued after 1st July 2017 in light of the GST Council’s relief measures dated 6 October 2017? (para 1, 5)
2. Whether the Press Release granted interim exemption or relief from IGST liability pending formal notification? (para 2, 5)

Observation of Court

1. The Court acknowledged the relief package announced by the GST Council in its 22nd Meeting, which did not distinguish between AAs issued before or after 1st July 2017 (para 5).
2. The Court took cognizance of the petitioner’s payment under protest and the lack of operationalization of the relief promised by the GST Council (para 3).
3. It directed the petitioner to file an affidavit recording these facts and observed that prima facie, the relief package applied to all AAs uniformly (para 4, 5).

Judgment of the Court

1. The Court granted interim relief, holding that the petitioner should not be compelled to pay IGST for further imports made under valid Advance Authorizations (para 5).
2. This relief was conditional upon submission of an undertaking that the clearance of goods will be subject to the outcome of the petition and customs verification (para 6).

Between Fine Lines

• The Delhi High Court protected the interests of exporters availing Advance Authorization by granting interim exemption from IGST, in light of the GST Council’s intent to provide relief.
• Even in the absence of a formal notification, policy declarations in press releases were given weightage.
• The ruling reflects judicial intervention where implementation lags behind policy.
• The order bridges the gap between administrative delay and taxpayer hardship.
• Petitioners were granted relief based on press releases, not just statutory instruments.

Summary of Referred Cases

Download Judgement