Alex Tour And Travel Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court considered a writ petition seeking implementation of three Orders-in-Appeal directing refund of unutilised Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to ₹2,62,01,727, along with applicable interest. The dispute related to refund of ITC claimed on inputs and input services used for export of services, which are treated as zero-rated supplies under Section 16(3)(a) of the IGST Act. The refund applications for FY 2018-19 and FY 2019-20 were initially rejected on the grounds that the petitioner rendered intermediary services rather than export of services and had not furnished Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates (FIRCs). The appellate authority set aside the rejection orders, holding that the services qualified as export of services under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act and that, in cases involving voluminous export transactions, consolidated FIRCs issued by the bank constituted sufficient evidence of receipt of foreign currency. Despite the appellate orders, the respondents issued deficiency memos and a show cause notice and did not process the refund, stating that they intended to challenge the appellate orders once the GST Appellate Tribunal was constituted. The High Court held that the Revenue cannot refuse to implement appellate orders merely on the ground that it proposes to file an appeal under Section 112 of the CGST Act, particularly in the absence of any stay granted by a competent court. It also observed that fresh refund applications or responses to the deficiency memos and show cause notice were unnecessary, treated those proceedings as non est, and held that the petitioner was entitled to interest in accordance with law due to the delay in granting the refund. The writ petition was allowed, directing the respondents to forthwith disburse the refund along with applicable interest, while clarifying that the Revenue remained free to pursue its statutory remedies against the Orders-in-Appeal.
