Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that on 05.02.2020, petitioner filed an application under RFD-01 for refund NC: 2025:KHC:45044 HC-KAR of unutilised Input Tax Credit (ITC) on account of export of services without payment of tax under Section 54(3)(i) of the CGST Act for the financial year 2018-19. The respondent having issued a show cause notice contending that the refund claim filed by the petitioner was liable to be rejected, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply along with attested copy of the FIRC (Foreign Inward Remittance Challan) dated 20.03.2020, pursuant to which, the refund applications of the petitioner for the financial year 2018-19 were sanctioned by the respondent No.5 vide order dated 04.04.2020.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. A perusal of the impugned orders will indicate that the primary ground on which the refund was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner is set aside and the refund claim of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents by coming to the conclusion that the Bank Realization Certificates (eBRCs) / Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRCs) was not produced by the petitioner during the proceedings. This finding is factually incorrect and erroneous NC: 2025:KHC:45044 HC-KAR inasmuch as in its replies dated 20.03.2020 and 26.06.2021 at Annexures-G and Q respectively, the petitioners have not only produced the eBRCs / FIRCs, but also given the details of the eBRCs and FIRCs produced by the petitioners and relied upon by them.

7. Under the identical circumstances, in relation to alleged non production of eBRCs/FIRCs, in the case of M/s. Nokia Solutions and Networks India Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Principal, Commissioner of Central Tax and Ors, this Court held as under:

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-
(a) Issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction of like nature quashing the impugned order dated 18.05.2022 bearing reference OIA No.39-42/2022-23/JC-
(i) A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondents 2 and 5 failed to consider and appreciate that issuance of FIRC had been discontinued by the Reserve Bank of India as can be seen from the RBI Circular No.74 at Annexure-H dated 26.05.2016; on the
- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC:45044 HC-KAR other hand, the petitioner had produced FIRAs which would clearly establish the receipt of the export proceeds before the 3rd respondent who had considered and accepted the same, while passing the refund sanction order; so also, subsequent to sanction of refund, the petitioner had submitted the eBRCs as can be seen from the email at Annexure-J dated 15.01.2021 submitted by the petitioner; similarly, petitioner had also produced the requisite CA certificate which co-related to the FIRAs already produced by the petitioner along with the refund applications. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid documents, facts and circumstances clearly establish the receipt of export proceeds by the petitioner and mere non-submission of FIRCs along with the refund application could not have been made the basis by the respondents 2 and 5 to set aside the refund sanction order which had been correctly and properly passed by the 3rd respondent after careful consideration and appreciation of the material on record.