Exporters Win ITC Refund Battle: Full Credit Granted Under LUT Without Procedural Roadblocks for Jan-Sept 2021 Period

HC ruled in favor of the petitioner regarding Input Tax Credit (ITC) refund for exports under LUT from January 2021 to September 2021. The court directed the respondent to process the refund claim as per appellate authority's decision, rejecting procedural objections and emphasizing taxpayer's rights. The refund must be processed without raising additional deficiency memos, while preserving the respondent's right to challenge through legal channels.

---

---

Issues involved: Refund of Input Tax Credit (ITC) for exports made under Letter of Undertaking (LUT) from January 2021 to September 2021.

Summary of Judgment:

1. The petitioner filed refund claims for ITC related to exports made under LUT for the period from January 2021 to September 2021. The respondent acknowledged the claims but did not process them within the stipulated period.

2. After delays, the respondent issued a Show Cause Notice proposing denial of the refund claimed by the petitioner on various grounds. The petitioner appealed the rejection before the appellate authority.

3. The appellate authority partly allowed the petitioner's refund claims, but the respondent failed to process the refund despite the appellate authority's decision.

4. The petitioner refiled the refund claim based on the appellate authority's decision, but the respondent alleged deficiencies in the application, which the court found unnecessary as the petitioner had already provided the required documents.

5. The court held that the petitioner was not required to make repeated refund applications after succeeding in the appellate proceedings. The appellate proceedings were a continuation of the refund application, and the orders of the appellate authority needed to be implemented.

6. The respondent's argument that a fresh online application was required post-appellate success was rejected by the court, emphasizing that the circular setting out the procedure should not be used to create unnecessary hurdles for taxpayers.

7. The court directed the respondent to sanction the refund claim as accepted by the appellate authority and process the petitioner's request in accordance with the law without raising further deficiency memos.

8. It was clarified that the disbursement of the refund would not prevent the respondent from challenging the Orders-in-Appeal through appropriate legal channels.

9. The petition was allowed, and the respondent was instructed to process the refund claim and the request in Form GST-PMT-03 as per the appellate authority's decision and the CGST Act provisions.

10. All pending applications were disposed of by the court.

---