SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 1439

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vibhu Bakhru, Amit Mahajan, JJ.
Alex Tour And Travel Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Division-janakpuri – Respondent
W.P.(C) 5722 of 2023
Decided On : 08-05-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Karan Sachdev & Ms. Masooma Rizvi, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Aditya Singla, Senior SC, CBIC, for the Respondent.

The court emphasized that in case of voluminous transactions of export of services to customers located outside India, transaction-wise FIRC is not feasible and a consolidated FIRC issued by the Banker is conclusive evidence of the fact that the appellant has received the foreign currency, qualifying as an export of service under the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

Headnote:

Refund - Input Tax Credit - Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - Section 16(3)(a)

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner claimed refund of unutilised Input Tax Credit for the financial years 2018-19 and 2019-20 for export of services. The claims were rejected on the ground that the services provided were intermediary services and did not qualify for export of services. The petitioner filed appeals against the rejection.

Finding of the Court:

The appellate authority allowed the appeals, accepting the petitioner's contention that transaction-wise FIRC for voluminous transactions of export of services to customers located outside India is not feasible. The court held that the rejection of the refund claims by the adjudicating authority was without appreciating the facts and maintainable in law.

Issues: The controversy between the parties was regarding the eligibility for refund of Input Tax Credit for export of services and the requirement of FIRC for the same.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in case of voluminous transactions of export of services to customers located outside India, transaction-wise FIRC is not feasible and a consolidated FIRC issued by the Banker is conclusive evidence of the fact that the appellant has received the foreign currency. The rejection of the refund claims by the adjudicating authority was without appreciating the facts and maintainable in law.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and directed the respondent to disburse the petitioner's claim for refund along with interest as payable in accordance with law, clarifying that this would not preclude the respondent from availing statutory remedy against the Orders-in-Appeal.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 22428/2023 (for exemption)

1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 5722/2023

3. The petitioner has filed the present appeal, inter alia, praying as under:

    "a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, directing the Respondent to implement the Order-in-Appeal No. 120-123/2022-23 dated 28.07.2022, 114-115/2022-23 dated 28.07.2022 and 262/2021-22 dated 08.02.2022 passed by the Ld. Additional Commissioner, CGST Appeals-II, Delhi and expeditiously grant refund of Rs.2,62,01,727/- to the Petitioner along with applicable interest;

    b) Pass such further orders and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require."

4. The controversy between the parties is regarding the refund of Input Tax Credit availed on inputs/input services which the petitioner claims to have used for export of service.

5. Undisputedly, the export of services is treated as a zero-rated supply and the petitioner is entitled for refund of the Input Tax Credit under Section 16(3)(a) of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter `the IGST Act').

6. The petitioner filed refund applications, all dated 13.04.2021, claiming refund of unutilised Input Tax Credit, amounting to Rs.46,38,276/- for the financial year 2018-19. Thereafter, on 14.04.2021, the petitioner filed an application seeking refund of the unutilised Input Tax Credit, amounting to

Rs.2,15,63,451/- for the period 2019-20. A tabular statement indicating the period for which refund was sought and the amount claimed, is set out below:

Sl. No.PeriodAmount of refund claimed (INR)
2018-19
1.Apr-June14,89,720/-
2.July-Sept3,82,149/-
3.Oct-Dec9,32,211/-
4.Jan-Mar18,34,196/-
Sub-total46,38,276/-
2019-20
5.Apr-June72,35,435/-
6.July-Sep80,95,822/-
7.Oct-Mar62,32,194/-
Sub-total2,15,63,451/-
TOTAL2,62,01,727/-

7. The petitioners' claims for refund were rejected, inter alia, on the ground that the services provided by the petitioner were intermediary services and did not qualify for export of services. The respondent also raised an issue regarding non-furnishing of Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (hereafter `FIRC').

8. According to the petitioner, it was not feasible to co-relate invoices with separate FIRCs and a consolidated FIRC would be sufficient to claim the refund for the unutilised Input Tax Credit.

9. The petitioner filed an appeal against the orders dated 14.06.2021 (7 in no.) passed by the adjudicating authority under Section 54(5) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter `the CGST Act').

10. The appellate authority allowed the said appeals preferred against the orders dated 14.06.2021 by three separate orders; Order-in-Appeal No. 262/2021-22 dated 08.02.2022 for the period October, 2019 to March, 2020; Order-in-Appeal No. 114-115/2022-23 dated 28.07.2022 for the period April, 2019 to September, 2019 and Order-in-Appeal No. 120-123/2022-23 dated 28.07.2022 for the period 2018-19.

11. It is also relevant to note that the appellate authority also accepted the petitioner's contention that in case of voluminous transactions of export of services to customers located outside India, transaction-wise FIRC is not feasible. The relevant observations made by the appellate authority in this regard are set out below:

    "As regards discrepancy related to FIRC observed in the impugned order I find force in the contention of appellant in their case of voluminous transaction of export of services to customers located outside India transaction wise FIRC is not feasible nor it is intended by law. I hold that FIRC issued from bank in any format is conclusive evidence of the fact that appellant has received the foreign currency and issuance of consolidated FIRC by the Banker can't be the ground of rejection of refund claim to which appellant is otherwise eligible.

    Thus I am of considerate view services rendered by App

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top