9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (3) TMI 1303 - HC - GSTRefund of unutilized Input Tax Credit for the Financial Year FY 2022-23 and first quarter of FY 2023- 24 - remittance of funds to a bank account located in Bangalore despite the services being exported by the Delhi branch office (BO) of the petitioner - HELD THAT - An identical issue decided in CABLE AND WIRELESS GLOBAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CGST ORS. 2024 (10) TMI 442 - DELHI HIGH COURT where it was held that While it is true that the aforesaid mapping of the Bangalore bank account has occurred after the remittances were received they are clearly in validation of the fact that services had been exported by the Delhi BO and which has now clearly disclosed an additional bank account maintained at Bangalore. That these remittances are connected with the services rendered by the Delhi BO to VGSL was neither questioned nor doubted by the respondents before us. The objection as taken thus clearly appears to be overly technical and unsustainable. Conclusion - The petitioner is entitled to a reconsideration of the refund claim for unutilized ITC and the remittance to the Bangalore bank account does not preclude the refund. The impugned order dated 31 December 2024 is quashed - petition allowed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issue considered in this judgment is whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to INR 11,45,56,735/- for the Financial Year 2022-23 and the first quarter of FY 2023-24, which was previously rejected. The specific question revolves around the validity of the refund denial based on the remittance of funds to a bank account located in Bangalore, despite the services being exported by the Delhi branch office (BO) of the petitioner. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The legal framework primarily involves the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act and the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act. The IGST Act defines "export of service" under Section 2(6) and emphasizes that the payment for such service must be received by the "supplier of service." Section 2(15) of the IGST Act and Section 2(71) of the CGST Act define the "location of the supplier of services," focusing on the place of business for which registration has been obtained. The Court referred to a previous judgment in Cable and Wireless Global India Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST & Ors., which dealt with a similar issue concerning the location of the supplier and the receipt of remittances in a bank account situated in a different location. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court interpreted the provisions of the IGST and CGST Acts to determine the location of the supplier of services. It emphasized that the location is determined by the place of business for which registration has been obtained, not by the location of the bank account receiving the remittance. The Court found that the objection based on the remittance being received in a Bangalore bank account was overly technical and unsustainable. Key Evidence and Findings: The Court noted that the petitioner had disclosed the bank account details maintained at Standard Chartered Bank Limited in Bangalore. The remittances from VGSL were credited to this account, which was mapped to the Delhi BO's registration. The respondents did not dispute or doubt that the services were exported by the Delhi BO. Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the definitions of "export of service" and "location of the supplier of services" from the IGST and CGST Acts to the facts of the case. It concluded that the Delhi BO was the location of the supplier, and the remittance to the Bangalore bank account did not alter this determination. The receipt of payment in a different bank account did not impact the eligibility for a refund of unutilized ITC. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court addressed the respondents' objection regarding the remittance to the Bangalore bank account and found it to be overly technical. It noted that the statutory provisions do not tie the receipt of payment to a specific bank account, and the argument based on Sections 25(4) and 25(5) of the CGST Act was misconceived. Conclusions: The Court concluded that the impugned order rejecting the refund was unsustainable. It allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed that the refund claim be reconsidered expeditiously, taking into account the claim for statutory interest. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court held that the location of the supplier of services is determined by the place of business for which registration has been obtained, regardless of where the remittance is received. It emphasized that the statutory provisions do not require the receipt of payment in a specific bank account. The Court's reasoning reinforced the pre-eminence of the registered place of business in determining the location of the supplier. Core Principles Established: The judgment established that the receipt of payment in a bank account located in a different city does not affect the determination of the supplier's location for the purpose of refund claims under the IGST and CGST Acts. The statutory provisions prioritize the registered place of business over the location of the bank account receiving the remittance. Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Court determined that the petitioner is entitled to a reconsideration of the refund claim for unutilized ITC, and the remittance to the Bangalore bank account does not preclude the refund. It directed the respondents to consider the refund claim afresh, including the claim for statutory interest.
|
