9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 1217 - HC - GSTRejection of refund claim - export of services or not - remittance not received in foreign convertible exchange by the appellant - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Since the issues have not been thoroughly adjudicated either by the Adjudicating Authority namely the 1st respondent or by the Appellate Authority it is deemed appropriate that the matter should be remanded back to the first respondent to consider all the issues in a holistic manner and take note of the ratio decidendi which can be culled out in various decisions which have been relied by the appellant more particularly the decisions which were rendered during the service tax regime. The matter stands remanded back to the 1st respondent - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues involved: Challenge to rejection of refund application u/s 2(6) of IGST Act, 2017.
Summary: 1. The appellant challenged the rejection of their refund application based on the definition of "Export of Services" u/s 2(6) of IGST Act, 2017. The remittance received by the appellant was not considered as foreign convertible exchange by the first respondent, leading to the rejection of the refund application. The appellant argued that the remittance received through an exchange house should be deemed as received in foreign currency. The appellant also cited various regulations and court decisions to support their claim, which were not adequately considered by the authorities. The Court found that the decisions referred to by the appellant were not properly addressed by the first respondent, and thus remanded the matter back to the first respondent for a holistic reconsideration of all issues and relevant legal precedents. 2. The Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the first respondent for a fresh decision after affording the appellant an opportunity for a personal hearing. The Court emphasized that it did not delve into the merits of the case but directed the first respondent to consider all factual and legal aspects before reaching a new decision. The first respondent was instructed to issue a fresh order within three months from the conclusion of the personal hearing.
|
