Export refund cannot be denied for missing customs certificate when postal-export records and proof of realisation support the claim.

Refund of input tax credit to an exporter could not be denied merely for non-production of a customs clearance certificate where that certificate was not issued for postal exports and other reliable export evidence was available. The refund claim was supported by the export order, invoice, postal receipt, bank credit advice, and postal declaration, and the earlier appellate view recognised that alternative documents must be considered when the prescribed certificate is unobtainable. A later amendment could not validate the earlier refusal where the refund was already due under the statute. The rejection was therefore treated as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, and discriminatory, and the exporter was held entitled to refund with statutory interest.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of input tax credit to an exporter could be denied for want of a customs clearance certificate when such certificate was not issued for postal exports and other export-related documents had been produced; and whether the refusal of refund was arbitrary and illegal.

Analysis: The claim for refund was supported by the export order, invoice, postal receipt, bank credit advice, and postal declaration/label, while the customs clearance certificate contemplated under Rule 35(6)(a)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 was shown to be unavailable for exports by post. The earlier appellate order had already recognised that, where the prescribed certificate is not issued by the Customs authorities, the assessing authority must consider other relevant evidence such as shipping documents, declarations, and proof of realisation. The refund was also held to have been due within the statutory period under Section 38(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, and the subsequent attempt to sustain the rejection on a later amendment could not justify the earlier refusal. The differential treatment of the petitioner's claim, despite acceptance of similar refund claims in other cases, further demonstrated arbitrariness and discrimination.

Conclusion: The refusal to grant refund was held to be arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was held entitled to refund of the admitted VAT amount with statutory interest.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a prescribed export document is not capable of being issued by the competent authority, refund cannot be denied solely for non-production of that document if other reliable evidence of export is available and supports the statutory refund claim.

---