THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN

COMMON ORDER:

Sri Narendra Dave, learned counsel appears for M/s. Lakshmi Kumaran & Sridharan, learned counsel for petitioner.

Smt. B. Sapna Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs appears for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

2. These two Writ Petitions assail the order-in-appeal passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals-I), Hyderabad, respondent No.1, in respect of July, 2020, to September, 2020, and October, 2020, to December, 2020, wherein the appellate authority vide common order dated 29.09.2023 has set aside the refund sanction orders dated 02.09.2022 and 07.10.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax, Hyderabad, inter alia holding that the Refund Sanctioning Authority erred in classifying the service as export of service without examining nature of service, place of provision of service and the applicability of sub-section (3) to (13) of Section 13 of Integrated Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘IGST Act, 2017’), on the question whether the supply qualifies as export and whether the refund is permissible.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that being persuaded by the order-in-appeal passed for the above periods, the Refund Sanctioning Authority has been rejecting the prayer for refund for subsequent period i.e., April, 2022, to June, 2022, as would be apparent from the order dated 18.06.2024, Annexure P.12. It is submitted that the application for sanction of refund has not been undertaken after independent verification of the claim but being guided by the common order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals-I) in the above departmental appeals filed for the previous year. It is submitted that the petitioner is ready to approach the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, which is going to be constituted on 01.10.2025, for assailing the impugned appellate orders on all grounds of law and fact as may be available to the petitioner. However, till then, this Court may be pleased to observe that the claims for refund for subsequent period should not be rejected simply on the basis of the impugned order-in-appeal passed in respect of the petitioner for previous tax periods.

4. Learned counsel for the department submits that the claim for refund for any subsequent period has to be processed or adjudicated on verification of all supporting documents, agreements etc in accordance with law. As such, the apprehension of the petitioner is misplaced. She submits that the impugned order-in-appeal passed by the appellate authority is not vulnerable as petitioner in the exercise for the instant claim for refund could not justify that its claim was fully based on the turnover of zero rated supply of services as stipulated under Rule 89(4)(D) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (for short ‘the CGST Rules, 2017’). Moreover, the Refund Sanctioning Authority had failed to determine the adjusted total turnover as stipulated in Rule 89(4)(E) of the CGST Rules, 2017, in the absence of proper verification of the agreements covering the said tax period to ascertain the nature of service, place of provision of services as to whether the export of services qualify under Section 2(6) of IGST Act.

However, she does not object to the prayer of the writ petitioner to avail the appellate remedy before the GST Tribunal under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

5. In that view of the matter, both the instant Writ Petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the GST Tribunal within a period of thirty (30) days of its constitution. Let it be made clear that we have not entered into the merits of the case of the parties. However, we deem it proper to observe that while deciding the petitioner’s claims relating to subsequent period, the Refund Sanctioning Authority should not be influenced by the impugned order-in- appeal passed by