Revenue Must Honor Orders-in-Appeal Despite Proposed Section 112 CGST Appeals; Refunds Directed Without Fresh Applications

HC allowed the writ petition, holding that Revenue cannot disregard binding Orders-in-Appeal merely on the ground that it proposes to file an appeal under Section 112 CGST Act. Although the limitation period for filing appeals stands extended due to non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal, this does not authorize non-compliance with appellate orders. HC recorded Revenue's concession that no fresh refund applications or show cause notices are required, as proceedings already emanated from refund claims. Authorities were directed to give effect to the appellate orders granting refund to the petitioner.

---

---

Issues involved: Refund of Input Tax Credit for export of services, rejection of refund claims based on nature of services provided and non-furnishing of Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC).

Summary:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to implement orders for refund of Input Tax Credit for export of services. The controversy arose when the respondent rejected the refund claims, citing that the services provided were intermediary services and questioning the absence of Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates (FIRCs). The petitioner contended that a consolidated FIRC should suffice for claiming the refund. Appeals were filed against the rejection orders, and the appellate authority allowed the appeals, emphasizing that transaction-wise FIRCs were not feasible for numerous export transactions. The respondent issued Deficiency Memos and Show Cause Notices despite the appellate authority's decision. The court held that the Revenue's insistence on fresh refund applications was unnecessary, and the applications and deficiency memos were deemed invalid. The court directed the respondent to disburse the petitioner's refund claim with interest, noting that the Revenue's right to appeal against the appellate authority's orders remained unaffected.

The court highlighted that the Revenue's entitlement to appeal did not justify ignoring the appellate authority's orders, especially in the absence of a stay order from the Court. The petitioner was granted the refund along with applicable interest, emphasizing the need for timely disbursement. The judgment clarified that the respondent could still pursue statutory remedies against the appellate orders if deemed necessary, ensuring a balance between the parties' rights in the dispute.

---