2019 (9) TMI 419 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Refund of input tax credit - export of goods to Nepal - refund was rejected on the ground that the actual export was not sufficiently proved, there is no shipping bill or bill of lading to support the export - The Learned counsel for the revision petitioner, submitted that, he is in possession of the entire documents in original. According to him, at the time of argument the Tribunal had never expressed that the copies produced therein were insufficient. HELD THAT - The counsel made an attempt to produce the originals of the documents across the Bar. But, we are of the opinion that a perusal of such records while exercising the revisional jurisdiction by this court and taking a decision on the basis of such records may not be proper. The interest of justice could be served if the revision petitioner is given liberty to produce the original documents before the Tribunal. For the said purpose, we are inclined to remand the matter for a fresh consideration and disposal by the Tribunal. The appeal is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and disposal - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Rejection of claim for refund of input tax credit for goods exported to Nepal.

Analysis:
The judgment of the High Court of Kerala dealt with the rejection of a claim for refund of input tax credit by the revision petitioner concerning goods exported to Nepal. The revision petitioner had submitted various documents to support the claim, including invoices for export, lorry receipt details, and a statement from a chartered bank. However, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim, stating that there was a lack of evidence to prove that the goods were actually exported. The absence of shipping bills or bills of lading due to road transport to Nepal was highlighted as a deficiency. The Assistant Commissioner emphasized the need for documents like copies of invoices or consignor copies of lorry receipts with customs authorities' seals to substantiate the export, which were not adequately provided by the petitioner, leading to the claim's rejection.

The revision petitioner subsequently appealed to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), but the assessing authority's decision was upheld. The Deputy Commissioner emphasized the petitioner's failure to produce invoices with Indian Customs Authorities' seals to demonstrate the goods' export to Nepal. The documents provided were from Nepal Customs Authorities, and the lack of complete and accurate documentation to prove the actual export was cited as the reason for upholding the assessing authority's decision.

In a Second Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner presented a 'Bill of Export' with the Indian Customs Station seal at Raxul and a Customs Certificate from Nepal. However, the Tribunal noted the absence of customs authorities' signatures on the 'Bill of Export' and the failure to produce the original document with the required seals and signatures. The Tribunal also highlighted the absence of original 'Lorry Receipts' with border check post seals, leading to the conclusion that the petitioner had not adequately proven the export sales with appropriate documentary evidence.

The High Court, upon review, allowed the revision petition, setting aside the Tribunal's order and remanding the appeal for fresh consideration. The Court directed the Tribunal to permit the revision petitioner to produce the original documents for a comprehensive review. Emphasizing the importance of justice, the Court stressed the need for a thorough examination of all documents, including the originals, by the Tribunal for a fair and just decision. Additionally, the Court instructed the Tribunal to expedite the process and provide a fresh decision within one month of receiving a certified copy of the judgment, considering the appeal's age from 2016.