IEC Suspension Revoked and IGST Refund Matter Remanded for Adjudication on Merits by Authority

By | September 1, 2026
0 Comment
IEC Suspension Revoked and IGST Refund Matter Remanded for Adjudication on Merits by Authority
Issue
Whether suspended IGST export refunds under Rule 96 and eligibility issues raised by the tax authority should be remanded to the competent respondent for determination on merits after revocation of the IEC suspension.
Facts
  • Export and Refund Claim: The petitioner exported goods and was initially granted IGST refunds under Rule 96 of the CGST Rules, 2017.
  • Issuance of Notice: The first respondent issued a notice stating that the petitioner was ineligible to claim IGST refund on the ground of not being an EPCG licence holder.
  • IEC Suspension: IGST refunds for subsequent shipping bills linked to the petitioner’s Import Export Code (IEC) were systematically suspended by the department.
  • Relief Sought: The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash the notice and directing the respondents to process the pending IGST refunds under Section 54 read with Rule 96.
  • Pendency Development: During the pendency of the writ petition, the suspension placed on the petitioner’s IEC was revoked by the authorities.
Decision
  • No Opinion on Merits: The High Court refrained from expressing any view on the underlying merits of the EPCG eligibility or the IGST refund claims.
  • Liberty to Submit Documents: Held that considering the limited relief sought, the petitioner is permitted to submit all necessary supporting documents before the second respondent within two weeks.
  • Direction to Authority: The second respondent was directed to consider the matter afresh on merits, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders within six weeks of receiving the documents.
  • Disposal of Petition: The writ petition was disposed of with the above directions to the authorities.
Key Takeaways
  • Remand for Administrative Adjudication: High Courts will generally refrain from adjudicating factual tax/refund disputes under Article 226 when administrative remedies can resolve the issue following the removal of operational impediments (like IEC suspension).
  • Time-Bound Directions: Where an IEC suspension is revoked, authorities are required to process pending export refunds under Section 54/Rule 96 within a stipulated timeframe upon receipt of necessary documentation.
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Kuntal Granites (P.) Ltd.
v.
Deputy Commissioner of Customs
M. Dhandapani, J.
W.P. No. 30030 of 2023
JUNE  16, 2026
E. Manoharan for the Petitioner. K. Mohanamurali, Senior Panel Counsel for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent’s notice dated 28.09.2020 in DIN 20200973MZ00002RB587 in F.No. S.Misc/10/2020/IGST-Refunds-(CH.IV) and quash the same, and consequently direct the respondents to process the petitioner’s refund claim of IGST paid on export in accordance to Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 96 of CGST Rules, 2017.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner company is engaged in the business of processing of granite slabs/ tiles/ panels and other stone products. The petitioner had been availing refund of IGST paid on export as per the provisions of Rule 96, CGST Rules, 2017. However, the first respondent issued the impugned notice stating that the petitioner is not a holder of EPCG license, thus not eligible for export with payment of tax and to claim for IGST refund benefits on exported goods, however, the petitioner availed IGST refunds between 09.10.2018 to 31.03.2020 on exported goods and that grant of IGST refund for subsequent shipping bills pertaining to IEC has been suspended for further enquiry and challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that during the pendancy of the writ petition, the suspension with regard to IEC code was revoked. Hence, this Court may permit the petitioner to produce the necessary documents with regard to the claim of refund of IGST before the second respondent, as per the impugned notice dated 28.09.2020 and may issue direction to the second respondent to consider the grant of IGST refund within a reasonable time.
4. The learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents raise no serious objection.
5. Considering the limited relief now sought for by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, permits the petitioner to produce necessary documents with regard to the claim of refund of IGST before the second respondent, as per the impugned notice dated 28.09.2020, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such documents, the second respondent shall consider the same, on merits and in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders, within a period of six weeks thereafter.
6. The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.