IGST Refund on Exports Cannot Be Denied for Typo in GST Return | HC
- Blog|News|GST & Customs|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 5 September, 2025
Latest from Taxmann
Case Details: Ruhi Siraj Makda vs. Union of India - [2025] 177 taxmann.com 623 (Gujarat)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Bhargav D. Karia & Pranav Trivedi, JJ.
- Hiren J. Trivedi for the Petitioner
- C.B. Gupta for the Respondent
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, an exporter, had paid IGST on goods exported. While filing return in Form GSTR-1, the petitioner inadvertently made a typographical error by entering the IGST amount as ‘Zero’ in Table 6A, where export details are filled in. However, the corresponding IGST was duly paid and reflected in Form GSTR-3B under Table 3.1(a) instead of Table 3.1(b). As a result of this error, the IGST scroll generated online in ICEGATE showed nil refund payable. Despite documents evidencing exports as zero-rated supplies, the Customs department withheld refund on the ground of mismatch between GST return data and customs data. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking release of refund, and the matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that refund of IGST paid on exports could not be denied merely on account of a typographical error in the GST return where documentary evidence established that the exports had taken place as zero-rated supplies. It was observed that the petitioner had undisputedly exported goods and paid IGST, and was therefore entitled to refund under Rule 96 of the CGST Act read with Gujarat GST Rules. The Court ruled that the Customs authorities could not withhold refund solely on the basis of a mismatch between GST data and customs data. Accordingly, the respondents were directed to sanction the refund of IGST paid together with statutory interest from the date of shipping bills till the date of actual refund.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Amit Cotton Industries v. Principal Commissioner of Customs [2019] 107 taxmann.com 167/75 GST 33/29 GSTL 200 (Gujarat) (para 16), followed
List of Cases Referred to
- Amit Cotton Industries v. Principal Commissioner of Customs [2019] 107 taxmann.com 167/75 GST 33/29 GSTL 200 (Gujarat) (para 16), followed
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied
Everything on Tax and Corporate Laws of India
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
CA | CS | CMA
