M/S. Adp Private Limited vs. The Additional Commissioner (Appeals-I)
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following COMMON ORDER t
: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH ANID THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHruDDIN WRIT PETITION Nos.26406 and 26419 of 2024 COMMON ORDER: Sri Narendra Dave, learned counsel appears for M/s. Lakshmi Kumaran & Sridharan, learned counsel for petrtioner. Smt. B. Sapna Reddy, learned Senior Counsel fbr Central Iloard of lndirect Taxes & Customs appears for respondent Nos.l to 3. 2. These two Writ petitions assail the order_in_appeal passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals_I), Hyderabad, respondent No. I , in respect of July, 2020, to September, 2020, and October, 2020, to December, 2020, wherein the appellate authoritv uile common order dated 29.09.2023 has set aside the refund sancrion orders dated 02.09.2022 and 07.10.2022 passed by the Deputy commissioner of centrar Tax, Hyderabad, inter aria holding that the Refund Sanctioning Authority erred in classifuing the service as export of service without examining nature of ( I -.'".<r< ----.---
HCJ {AKrS, J) & GMM, J W.P.Nos 26406 and 26119 ol2021 - \ .-. '1 ./. 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.
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', Aprll' 2022' to June' 2022' as would be apparent from the order dated 18'06'2024' Annexure P.
It is submitted that the application for sanction of refund has not been undertaken after independent verification ofthe claim but being guided by the common order passed Oy ti 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 Appetlate Tribunal' which is going to be constituted on 01'10'2025' for assailing the impugned appellate orders on all grourrds of law and fact as may be available to the petitioner. However, tilI then, this Court may be pleased to 2 L J I
/ HCJ (AKrS. J)& Gi!1M. J W P Nos.26406 and 261rs oi 2024 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 ofthe petitioner for previous tax periods.
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.justiflz that its claim was fully based on the tumover of zero rated supply of services as stipulated under Rule g9(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 ad.iusted total tumover as stipulated in Rule 89(4)(E) of the CGST Rutes. 2017, in the absence of proper verification of the agreements covering the said tax period to asceftain the nature of servicerplace of provision of services as to whether the export of services qualifu under Section 2(6) of IGST )J
.ff1 \ Act. [{owever, she does not object to the prayer of the writ petitioner to avail the appellate remedy before the GST Tribunal under Section I 12 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 ol the parties. However, we deem it proper to observe that white deciding the petitioner's claims relating to subsequent period, the Ref'und Sanctioning Authority should not be influenced by the impugned order-in-appeal passed by respondent No'1 for previous period. There shall be no order as to costs' Miscellaneous applications , if anypending'' 'huil ttund closed' L. VIJAYA LAXMI sitsrarur REGISTRAR To ////
The Additional Commissloner (APPeals- r), GS Cent SECTION OFFICER ral Tax, 7th Floor, GST Bhruan, LB Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, erabad 500004
The DePutY Commissione r of Central Tax' Gachibo wli GST Division' RangareddY GST Commissionerate, 4th Floor' H.No.10-3-301 to 303, Serene Heights, HumaYan Nagar, Masab Tank, HYdera bad-500028. 3. The Commissioner of CentralTax, Rang areddY GST Commt ssionerate, 1 - 9817t43, VIP Hills, Jai Hind ColonY' Madhapur, HYderabad-50008
The Secretary to Government, Union of lndia, Ivlinistry of Finance' North Block, New Delhi 1 '10001 .
One CC to M/s LAKSHMI KUMARAN AND SRIDHARAN' Advocate [OPUC]
One CC tO SMT. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (SENIOR SC FOR CBIC) , 8IJ"% to DEPUTY sollclroR GENERAL oF INDIA' (.PUC)
Two CD CoPies 1 SA LS '\,4t I
HIGH COURT DATED:25 tOBt2O2S COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.264O6 AND 26419 o12024 DISPOSING BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS. r.<, \,,:, \.-+ \. + \{'^*,'. ---.-----._ : - I
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.