2021 (7) TMI 844

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tled to refund of Rs. 1,67,377/- under the Telangana VAT Act,2005. 2. For the months of April to October, 2005 and also November, 2005, the petitioner filed VAT returns in Form - VAT 200 before the relevant due dates claiming refund of input tax credit on the purchase turnover corresponding to export sales caused by the petitioner enclosing the following documents in order to substantiate its claim for refund under Rule 35 of the APVAT Rules: (a) Copy of order from foreign buyer. (b) Copy of label/declaration accompanying the speed post parcel. (c) Copy of invoice issued to foreign purchaser. (d) Copy of Postal Department receipt. (e) Evidence of payment from foreign buyer i.e., Bank Credit Ad....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cannot be issued by Customs Authorities); and the Assessing Authority can examine other evidence, such as purchase orders placed by the foreign buyer, evidence about realization of the consideration paid in terms of foreign currency, banker's certificate, etc., as alternative evidence including label or declaration accompanying the goods as contemplated under Section 82 of the Customs Act in lieu of shipping bill, and grant refund to the petitioner according to law. 7. In spite of this order of the Appellate Authority, the 1st respondent again passed an order on 21.08.2006 rejecting the petitioner's claim for refund from April, 2005 to November, 2005 on the ground that the petitioner did not file exclusive evidence of export documents as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of proceedings dt.05.06.2007 issued by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad-II Commissionerate. He is unable to explain why in the impugned order, the 1st respondent had again chosen to reject the petitioner's application for refund on 21.08.2006 on the pretext that customs clearance certificate was not produced by the petitioner. 12. Admittedly, under Section 38(1) of the APVAT Act, 2005, refund due to an exporter has to be made within 90 days from the date of VAT return, and so the 1st respondent who is presumed to be aware of the said provision, could not have rejected the refund due to the petitioner. 13. More importantly, on 28.04.2006, after remand by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner on 18.04.2006, it is ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he respondents cannot sustain the impugned order dt.21.8.2006 refusing refund to the petitioner on basis of new pleas not contained in the said order, and on events which happened after the said order was passed. 18. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's application for refund enclosed the documents referred to above in the 2nd paragraph except the customs clearance certificate which was not being issued by the Customs Authority.   19. The petitioner had also admittedly produced label / customs declaration furnished to the postal authorities to evidence export proper as the goods were exported by post by it. The petitioner had also produced the certificate issued by the Postal Department of Government of India confirming and....