Alex Tour & Travel Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner, CGST Uttam Nagar Division, Delhi High Court, W.P.(C) 12739/2023 | Refund of Unutilised ITC (Export of Services) | Order dated 22.11.2023
1. Classification of Case under GST Act (2017)
Category: Refund of Unutilised ITC – Export of Services
Relevant Provisions:
-
Section 16 & 54 of CGST Act – Zero-rated supply refund framework
-
Rule 89 of CGST Rules – Refund application process
-
Section 107 of CGST Act – Appeal; binding force of OIA
-
Section 56 of CGST Act – Interest on delayed refunds
2. Facts of the Case (Paras 1–10)
The petitioner filed two refund applications (14.04.2021 & 13.04.2021) seeking refund of unutilised ITC for FY 2019–20 (₹2,15,63,451) and FY 2018–19 (₹46,38,276). The Adjudicating Authority rejected both claims on two grounds: (i) the petitioner was an intermediary and therefore not exporting services; and (ii) FIRCs were not submitted in the “transaction-wise” format, despite the petitioner having furnished consolidated FIRCs.
On appeal, the Appellate Authority (Order-in-Appeal dated 28.07.2022) accepted that consolidated FIRCs constituted valid proof of receipt of foreign currency for voluminous service exports and directed refund. Despite this, multiple deficiency memos and fresh SCNs were issued, claiming intent to challenge the OIA. The petitioner approached the High Court in W.P.(C) 5722/2023, where the Court categorically directed disbursement of refund with interest and declared such deficiency memos non est.
Even thereafter, the Department again initiated adjudication and partly rejected refund, prompting the present writ petition alleging wilful disregard of the High Court’s mandate. The Court noted prima facie that the Deputy Commissioner had failed to implement the specific direction to forthwith disburse refund with interest.
3. Questions / Issues for Determination
-
Whether the Adjudicating Authority could reopen or reconsider refund claims after the Appellate Authority had conclusively allowed the refund?
-
Whether issuance of fresh deficiency memos or SCNs amounts to wilful non-compliance of the High Court’s earlier order directing refund disbursal?
-
Whether failure to implement the earlier binding order warrants initiation of contempt proceedings?
4. Observations of the Court (Paras 10–13)
The High Court observed that its prior order dated 08.05.2023 had unambiguously directed the Department to disburse refund with interest. The exercise of re-adjudicating the refund application after the OIA and after the High Court’s order demonstrated prima facie wilful non-compliance.
The Court emphasised that the Department cannot refuse to honour an appellate or writ order on the mere ground that it “intends to file an appeal”. Once the Appellate Authority has reversed the original rejection, the lower authority becomes functus officio on merits and must release the refund.
On these facts, the Court held that the conduct of the Deputy Commissioner warranted issuance of notice to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated. The concerned officer was directed to remain personally present on the next hearing date.
5. Judgment / Final Directions (Paras 11–14)
-
Show-cause notice issued to the Deputy Commissioner, CGST, Uttam Nagar Division for wilful disobedience of the High Court’s earlier judgment.
-
The personal presence of the officer was mandated on the next date of hearing.
-
The matter was listed for 18.12.2023.
-
The High Court reiterated that refund must be disbursed strictly in terms of the earlier binding order that directed payment of refund along with interest.
6. Table of Cases Referred (with brief verdicts)
| Case Referred | Court’s Use | Verdict Summary |
|---|---|---|
| W.P.(C) 5722/2023, Alex Tour & Travel Pvt. Ltd. v. AC, CGST (08.05.2023) | Cited as binding earlier decision (Para 7–8) | High Court directed immediate disbursement of refund with interest; deficiency memos declared non est; Revenue cannot refuse implementation merely by stating intention to appeal. |
7. Between Fine Lines – Practical Takeaways for Trade & Industry
Once an Order-in-Appeal allows a refund, the Department cannot indefinitely delay or reopen adjudication by issuing new deficiency memos or citing potential future appeals. The refund becomes enforceable, and any act of revisiting the claim may expose officers to contempt. Consolidated FIRCs are valid documentary evidence for large export-service transactions. Refund orders must be implemented promptly, failing which interest and judicial consequences may follow.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
