Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. The respondents - revenue filed appeals before the 2 nd respondent - appellate authority challenging the aforesaid refund orders interalia contending that the petitioner had not submitted Bank Realisation Certificates (BRCs) / Foreign Inward Remittance NC: 2024:KHC:33781 Certificates (FIRCs) before the 3rd respondent. The revenue also contended that in the FIRAs(Foreign Inward Remittance Advices) submitted by the petitioner, the location of the beneficiary is mentioned as Gurgaon which is different from the petitioner's location at Bengaluru and the purpose of remittance is mentioned as 'against intercompany receipt'. It was also contended that the Invoices submitted by the petitioner mentioned that the payments are to be made in Bank of America, New Delhi Account No.36574019 whereas the FIRAs showed the Account Number as 36574085. It was further contended that the services provided by the petitioner were "intermediary services" in respect of which the petitioner was not entitled to seek refund and that the refund orders are to be set aside on this ground also.

(i) Petitioner had not submitted BRCs/FIRCs along with the refund claim to indicate proof of receipt of foreign exchange for export of service and had failed to comply with the Circular No.125/44/2019-GST dated 18.11.2019.
(ii) Petitioner had not realised any payment for service supplied in convertible foreign exchange and therefore, the supply NC: 2024:KHC:33781 of service by the petitioner did not qualify to be "export of services"
under Section 2(6) of IGST Act and "Zero rated supply" under Section 16(1)(a) of the IGST Act.
(iii) In the FIRA, the location of the beneficiary mentioned as Gurgaon which is different from the petitioner's location at Bengaluru.
(iv) In the FIRC, the purpose of remittance is mentioned as "against intercompany receipt" which is not same as remittance for zero rated supply.
(v) Petitioner had not followed the prescribed provisions for claiming refund which was in violation of Sections 54(1) and (4) of the CGST Act r/w Rule 89(2)(c) of the CGST Rules and the Circular dated 18.11.2019.
(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 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.