M/S Ba Call Centre INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. The Additional Commissioner (Appleals) And Anr
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s BA Call Centre India Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the rejection of its GST refund claim for the period July 2020 to September 2020. The refund was sought under the category of accumulated Input Tax Credit (ITC) on export of services without payment of tax. The initial rejection was based on the classification of the service as 'intermediary'. The petitioner had previously succeeded in an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), CGST Gurugram, for the period April 2021 to September 2021, where the service was held to be an 'export of service'. The department accepted this appellate order. Additionally, a refund for the subsequent period April 2022 to March 2023 was sanctioned. The respondents indicated that for the period July 2020 to September 2020, the petitioner would need to file a fresh application.
Held
The Court noted that the parties were ad idem (in agreement) regarding the assertions made in the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2. The affidavit stated that the refund claim for April 2021 to September 2021 was initially rejected as 'intermediary' but was allowed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) on 05.04.2024, holding the service as 'export of service', and this order was accepted by the department. Further, the refund for April 2022 to March 2023 was sanctioned. The respondent's counsel submitted that for the period July 2020 to September 2020, the petitioner would have to move a fresh application. The Court accepted this submission and disposed of the petition with the direction that if a fresh application is moved, it shall be taken cognizance of by the competent authority and the requisite amount shall be refunded. The Court did not delve into the merits of the original rejection for the period July 2020 to September 2020, relying on the procedural suggestion made by the respondent.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of accumulated ITC for the period July 2020 to September 2020, given the prior favorable rulings for subsequent periods and the department's acceptance of an appellate order classifying the service as 'export of service'. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner likely argued that based on the consistent classification of their services as 'export of service' by the appellate authority and the subsequent sanction of refunds for other periods, their claim for the period July 2020 to September 2020 should also be considered favorably. They would rely on the principle of consistency and the fact that the department accepted the appellate order for a later period. Respondent's contention: The respondent (Revenue) contended that for the specific period in question (July 2020 to September 2020), the petitioner must file a fresh application for the refund. They did not dispute the petitioner's entitlement in principle but indicated a procedural requirement for the claim to be processed.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision :09.01.2025 CWP No.18830 of 2023 (O&M) M/s BA Call Centre India Private Limited ......Petitioner Versus The Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Gurugram and another ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present : Ms. Priyanka Rathi, Advocate; Ms. Ashwinichandrasekaran, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Kalra, Sr. Standing counsel and Ms. Isha Janjua, Advocate for respondent No.
ARUN PALLI, J.
(Oral)
: Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that in the wake of the assertions, set out in para 18 of the affidavit, filed on behalf of respondent No.2, nothing substantive survives in the petition:- “In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that refund claim for the period April 2021 to September 2021 filed by the petitioner under the category “Refund of accumulated ITC on Export of Services without payment of Tax” was rejected by the adjudicating authority considering the service as ‘intermediary’. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the rejection order was allowed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeal), CGST Gurugram vide OIA dated 05.04.2024 on merits, holding that the service provided by the petitioner is “export of service”. The said MANOJ KUMAR 2025.01.10 12:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document order-in-appeal dated 05.04.2024 has been accepted by the department. Further, the refund claim filed by the Petitioner for the subsequent period, April 2022 to March 2023 Under the same category has been considered on merits and sanctioned vide Order No. ZD060624045896Z dated 27.06.2024.” However, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits, for the petitioner to claim refund for the period in question i.e. July 2020 to September 2020, shall have to move a fresh application. And, in the event, any such application is moved the same shall be taken cognizance of by the competent authority and the requisite amount, the petitioner is entitled to, shall be refunded. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE 09.01.2025 Manoj Bhutani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2025.01.10 12:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.