Case Title: Prakash Impex v. Commissioner of Customs (Exports–Sea) & Anr
Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras
Petition Number: W.P. No. 11186 of 2025
Date of Judgment: 03 April 2025
Category: Refund of IGST on Export of Goods
Relevant Sections: Section 56 of the CGST Act, 2017; Rule 96 of the CGST Rules, 2017
Facts (Para 1–3)
The petitioner, Prakash Impex, a partnership firm engaged in export of goods, had paid IGST amounting to ₹18,78,728 on goods exported under Shipping Bill No. 2481515 dated 17.06.2021. Claiming entitlement to refund under Section 56 of the CGST Act read with Rule 96 of the CGST Rules, the petitioner filed a representation on 03.10.2022 before the Superintendent of CGST, Chennai. Despite this, no action or order was passed by the department, compelling the petitioner to seek judicial intervention for a direction to process the refund claim.
Questions before the Court (Para 3–4)
The key question was whether the authorities were justified in not considering the exporter’s refund representation despite a long lapse of time and whether a direction could be issued to ensure the refund claim is examined in accordance with law.
Observations (Para 5–7)
The Court observed that the petitioner’s representation for refund of IGST had been pending since October 2022 without any response from the department. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the department was willing to consider the representation if the petitioner resubmitted a copy. Recognizing the procedural lapse and the need for administrative fairness, the Court held that refund claims must be disposed of within a reasonable timeframe as per Section 56 of the CGST Act, which mandates interest for delayed refunds.
Judgment (Para 7–8)
The Court directed the petitioner to furnish a copy of the earlier representation dated 03.10.2022 to the second respondent within two weeks. Upon receipt, the second respondent was directed to consider and dispose of the representation within four weeks on its own merits and in accordance with law. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of without costs.
Summary of Referred Cases
| S. No. | Case Name | Citation | Verdict / Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | — | — | No other judgments were cited in this case. |
Between Fine Lines
This order reinforces that refund claims under GST cannot be left pending indefinitely. Exporters must be provided a timely resolution, failing which courts may direct the authorities to act within a specific timeframe. The decision underscores the principle that administrative silence on refund applications violates taxpayer rights under Section 56 of the CGST Act.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
