High Court: Services procuring purchase orders for foreign clients, export of service under 2005 rules. Revenue's argument rejected, refund allowed. No unjust enrichment. Appeal dismissed.

The High Court held that the services provided, involving procuring purchase orders for foreign clients who supplied goods to buyers in India, qualified as export of service under the Export of Taxable Service Rules, 2005. The Court rejected the Revenue's argument and allowed the refund claimed by the Respondent. The Court also found that the refund application did not violate the principle of unjust enrichment as the tax was paid from the commission received, and no objection was raised by the Revenue during the proceedings. Consequently, the Appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the services provided qualify as export of service under Export of Services Rules, 2005Rs.
2. Whether the refund claimed by the Respondent is valid without complying with procedural formalitiesRs.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The Respondent erroneously paid service tax on the export of service and sought a refund under the Export of Taxable Service Rule, 2005. The service involved procuring purchase orders for foreign clients, who then supplied goods to buyers in India. The Tribunal allowed the refund based on a previous court decision. The High Court found that the service of procuring orders and passing them to overseas clients qualifies as export of service under the Export of Taxable Service Rules, 2005. The Court rejected the Revenue's argument as the issue was already settled in a previous case. Therefore, the first question did not raise any substantial question of law and was not entertained.

Issue 2:
The Appellant argued that the refund was granted without considering unjust enrichment. However, the Court found that the refund application clearly stated that the tax was paid out of the commission received. The Revenue did not raise any objection on unjust enrichment in the show cause notice or during the proceedings. As the issue was not raised at any stage, the Court concluded that the Appellant's submission lacked basis. Therefore, the second question did not give rise to any substantial question of law and was not entertained. Consequently, the Appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

---