Alex Tour And Travel Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner, CGST (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court held that department cannot ignore an order passed by the appellate authority merely stating that it proposes to file an appeal against the said order.
Facts- The applications filed by the petitioners for refund of unutilized ITC were rejected. However, the appellate authority allowed the appeals.
The appellate authority also accepted the petitioner’s contention that in case of voluminous transactions of export of services to customers located outside India, submission of transaction-wise FIRCs were not feasible.
The petitioner again filed Form GST RFD-01 on 19.02.2022, 23.08.2022 and 10.11.2022 for grant of refund along with interest.
otwithstanding that the petitioner has succeeded before the appellate authority, the respondent has not processed the petitioner’s claim for refund.
Conclusion- We are unable to accept that the Revenue can ignore an order passed by the appellate authority on the ground that it proposes to appeal the said order.
The present petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to forthwith disburse the petitioner’s claim for refund along with interest as payable in accordance with law.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
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. 120123/2022-23 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 in this petition relates the petitioner’s entitlement for 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 ₹46,38,276/- for the financial year 2018-19. Thereafter, on 14.04.2021, the petitioner filed applications seeking refund of the unutilised Input Tax Credit, amounting to an aggregate sum of ₹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:
