2023 (4) TMI 69 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Refund of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on Export of Goods and Services without payment of Integrated tax - rejection on account of difference in turnover - typographical error - invoices mentioning Lowa State in the United States of America - HELD THAT - The learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that considering the magnitude of the refund sought, the Deputy Commissioner was careful in scrutinizing of the documents and having found that the typographical error had to be corrected by the Petitioner and not by the Deputy Commissioner, rejected the refund application and there is no error in the same. The learned Counsel for the Respondents states that there are other grounds on which the Petitioner is not entitled to refund. Invoices mentioning Lowa State in the United States of America - HELD THAT - There is an obvious typographical error as there is no such State in the United States. The corresponding name to that place is Iowa State, and therefore, the explanation of the Petitioner is plausible and should have been considered by the Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, it is opined that with this finding / correction the Deputy Commissioner needs to examine the Refund Application made by the Petitioner afresh, also examine the evidence that is produced by the Petitioner in addition to the invoices and take a decision. The impugned order dated 22 April 2022 passed by the Respondent no.2 Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Pune, is quashed and set aside. The application of the Petitioner for refund is restored to the file of the Deputy Commissioner - It is open to the Petitioner to supply additional documents in support of its claim for refund. During the hearing the Petitioner would also keep the originals of the documents to enable the Deputy Commissioner to scrutinize and ascertain the veracity thereof. The Writ Petition is allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves a challenge to the order rejecting a refund application for Input Tax Credit (ITC) on export of goods and services due to discrepancies, particularly a typographical error in the State name mentioned in the invoices.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Rejection of refund application due to discrepancies:
The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax rejected the refund application of Rs.7,53,20,729/- on account of ITC on export of goods and services without payment of Integrated tax. The rejection was primarily based on discrepancies found in the application, including a typographical error in the State name mentioned in the invoices.

Issue 2: Typographical error in State name in invoices:
The invoices submitted by the Petitioner mentioned the export of services to a State named "Lowa" in the United States, which was deemed incorrect by the Deputy Commissioner. The Petitioner argued that it was a typographical error and should have been "Iowa." The Court agreed with the Petitioner, stating that the explanation was plausible and the Deputy Commissioner should have considered it. The Court directed the Deputy Commissioner to reexamine the refund application, taking into account additional evidence provided by the Petitioner.

Decision:
The High Court quashed and set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner rejecting the refund application. The application for refund was restored to the file of the Deputy Commissioner for reexamination. The Petitioner was allowed to submit additional documents to support the claim for refund, and the Deputy Commissioner was directed to give a personal hearing to the Petitioner and dispose of the application within twelve weeks.