Export refund claims cannot be refused solely for missing shipping bills when credible alternative proof of export exists.

Export-linked refund under the Gujarat VAT regime could not be denied where the exporter had already produced the required documents for directly made exports, and the rejection on that ground was unsustainable. For courier-based exports, the authority could not insist rigidly on shipping bills alone when other credible evidence of export, including invoices, online orders, courier reports, delivery status records, remittance records, transaction advice, and courier invoices, was available. The HC set aside the rejection order and directed reconsideration and processing of the refund claims in accordance with law, with alternative proof to be assessed on its merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner's provisional refund claim relating to exports made directly could be rejected despite production of the required documents; (ii) Whether the refund claim relating to exports made through courier services could be rejected merely because shipping bills were not produced, even where other documentary evidence of export was available.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner's provisional refund claim relating to exports made directly could be rejected despite production of the required documents.

Analysis: The refund claim was founded on export activity under the Gujarat Value Added Tax regime, and refund was contingent on proof of export. Where exports were directly made and the relevant documents were already produced, rejection of the provisional refund claim was unwarranted. The authority's refusal on that aspect was found to be erroneous.

Conclusion: The rejection of the refund claim for directly made exports was not sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund claim relating to exports made through courier services could be rejected merely because shipping bills were not produced, even where other documentary evidence of export was available.

Analysis: The document requirement under the departmental circular could not be applied rigidly where exports were routed through courier agencies and shipping bills were not readily available to the exporter. The Court held that if alternative documentary evidence such as invoices, online orders, courier reports, delivery status reports, remittance records, transaction advice, and courier invoices was available, the claim could not be rejected solely for absence of shipping bills. The department was required to consider such material and decide the refund in accordance with law, keeping in view the time-bound processing requirement under the VAT Rules.

Conclusion: The refund claim could not be rejected only for non-production of shipping bills when other reliable proof of export existed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned rejection order was set aside and the refund claims were directed to be reconsidered and processed in accordance with law, with direct-export claims to be decided without delay and courier-export claims to be assessed on the basis of alternative proof.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim for export-linked tax benefit cannot be refused solely for non-production of a prescribed document where the exporter furnishes other credible documentary evidence proving actual export.

---