Export service refund and input credit principles: wrong remittance code, professional tax filing fees and air travel services.

Refund for export of services should not be denied merely because the Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate carries an incorrect purpose code, where the remittance amount matches the export invoices and service agreement and foreign exchange receipt is otherwise established. Professional fees paid to a chartered accountant for filing an expatriate CEO's income-tax return may qualify as admissible input service credit when connected with business needs and not shown to be personal. By contrast, air travel agency services are not admissible as input credit without documentary proof that the travel was for official business purposes. The refund was otherwise allowed, with only the air travel credit disallowed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether refund under export of services could be denied merely because the Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate contained a wrong purpose code, (ii) whether credit on professional fees paid to a chartered accountant for filing the CEO's income-tax return was admissible, and (iii) whether credit on air travel agency services was admissible.

Issue (i): Whether refund under export of services could be denied merely because the Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate contained a wrong purpose code.

Analysis: The condition relevant to export of services was receipt of consideration in convertible foreign exchange. The remittance value corresponded with the export invoices and the service agreement, and the mismatch related only to the purpose code. The wrong purpose code was treated as an anomaly that did not disprove receipt of foreign exchange for the exported service. The record also showed an attempt to rectify the remittance details, and the refund could not be denied on that technical discrepancy.

Conclusion: The wrong purpose code did not justify rejection of the refund claim, and the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether credit on professional fees paid to a chartered accountant for filing the CEO's income-tax return was admissible.

Analysis: The professional fee was incurred for filing the tax return of an expatriate CEO who was not conversant with Indian tax law. The service was treated as a legal/professional service connected with the business and not as a disallowed personal or unrelated expense. On that basis, the credit was held to fall within the scope of admissible input service credit.

Conclusion: The credit on professional fees was admissible and the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Issue (iii): Whether credit on air travel agency services was admissible.

Analysis: Air travel service falls outside admissible input service credit when it is for personal use or consumption, and the assessee did not produce documentary evidence to establish that the travel was for official business purposes. In the absence of such proof, the claim for credit could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The credit on air travel agency services was inadmissible and the assessee failed on this issue.

Final Conclusion: The refund order was modified by allowing the claim except for the credit relating to air travel agency services, and the refund was directed to be released with applicable interest.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim for export of services cannot be rejected on the basis of a mere clerical mismatch in the remittance purpose code where receipt of foreign exchange for the exported service is otherwise established, and input credit must be tested on admissibility under the statutory definition and supporting evidence.

---