HC Directs Amendment of Shipping Bill to Correct GSTIN and Enable IGST Refund

GST • News • Case Chronicles

correction of GSTIN
Case Details: Auracare Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Customs Air Cargo Complex (2025) 29 Centax 408 (Guj.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Bhargav D. Karia & D.N. Ray, JJ.
  • Shri Darshan R Patel, Adv. for the Petitioner.
  • MS Hardika Vyas for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, a registered exporter under the GST regime, procured raw materials and effected an export of goods. While filing the shipping bill details on the ICEGATE portal at the time of export, the petitioner inadvertently entered the GSTIN of its sister concern, which had a similar name. This clerical error led to the shipping bill being generated in the name of the sister concern, despite the export being undertaken by the petitioner. Due to this mismatch between the shipping bill and the GST returns filed by the petitioner under Form GSTR-1 and Form GSTR-3B, the claim for refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) paid on the export was rejected by the revenue. Upon receiving the rejection, the petitioner submitted a written representation requesting the correction of the shipping bill details in the EDI system to reflect the correct GSTIN. In response, the revenue acknowledged that the petitioner had indeed erroneously entered the GSTIN of its sister concern. The authority further verified and confirmed that the petitioner was the actual exporter by cross-checking the relevant GST returns. However, the revenue stated that rectification in the EDI system could not be carried out once the export was completed, and accordingly, the refund could not be granted. Consequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Gujarat High Court seeking directions for necessary amendments in the EDI system and the GST portal to enable the release of the IGST refund.

High Court Held

The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that the petitioner’s inadvertent error, duly verified and substantiated through GST returns, could not justify denial of refund. The Court directed the revenue to amend the shipping bill in the EDI system by entering the correct GSTIN of the petitioner and to make corresponding changes on the GST portal. The entire process, including refund disbursal, was to be completed within twelve weeks.

Leave Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Stories
HC Sets Aside GST Order Passed Without Considering Assessee’s Reply

GST • News • Case Chronicles

May 2, 2025

Form GST MOV-09 Notice—AP High Court Clears DTDC of Tax Liability

GST • News • Case Chronicles

May 1, 2025

HC Quashes GST Order Passed Without Hearing Assessee After Registration Cancellation

GST • News • Case Chronicles

April 29, 2025

HC Orders Restoration of GST Registration if Dues Cleared and Returns Filed

GST • News • Case Chronicles

April 29, 2025

HC Quashes GST Orders Served Only via Portal Without Proper Communication

GST • News • Case Chronicles

April 29, 2025

CGST Compensation Cess Refund—Tata Steel vs Jharkhand | HC

GST • News • Case Chronicles

April 28, 2025

HC Grants Stay on Tax Recovery Subsumed Under CIRP Resolution Plan

GST • News • Case Chronicles

April 28, 2025

No GST on Estimated Value of By-Products Retained by Rice Millers After Milling Paddy for Government | HC

GST • News • Case Chronicles

April 16, 2025

GSTN Implements Phase-III Changes in Table-12 of GSTR-1 and GSTR-1A w.e.f. April 2025 Mandating HSN-Wise B2B and B2C Bifurcation

GST • News • Statutory Scope

April 15, 2025

GSTN Clarifies on State-Wise Reporting of Inter-State Supplies Under Table 3.2 of GSTR-3B

GST • News • Statutory Scope

April 15, 2025