9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 934X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es as well as the Appellate Authority rejected the refund claims on, essentially, two grounds. First, that the services provided by the petitioner in respect of which refund of IGST was claimed did not as qualify export of services. And second, that the claims preferred were beyond the period of two years from the relevant dates and therefore, were barred by limitation. 4. According to the petitioner, the connectivity services rendered by it to inbound subscribers of FTOs qualifies as export of services as the services are rendered to an entity resident outside India-FTOs. The petitioner also claims that its claims for refund were within the prescribed period as the petitioner had received payments after the date of invoices and its claims were made within a period of two years of receipt of remittances for the services in question. 5. The principal questions involved in the present petition are whether the telecom services provided by the petitioner to inbound subscribers of FTOs constitute export of services and whether its claims were within the period of limitation as specified under Section 54(1) of the CGST Act. Factual Context 6. The petitioner holds a telecommunication ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner proposing to reject the said refund claims mainly for the following reasons: * BRCs are not mentioned against the respective export invoices in Statement-2. * The applications appeared to be time barred in accordance with Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017. * Non-submission of self-certified copy of service agreement between the company and foreign customer. * The refund amount as well as the period for which refund has been claimed in the refund application is not consistent in CA certificate dated 28.08.2020 with that of the refund application. * Non-submission of reconciliation of export invoices with BRCs and bank statement. * Non-submission of all the BRCs with respect to all the export invoices for the relevant period for which refund has been claimed. * Non-submission of certified copies of all the export invoices for the relevant period to the period for which refund has been claimed. * Non-submission of copy of all the purchase invoices along with reconciliation with respect to export invoices. * Copy of all the service agreements with your suppliers relevant to the period for which refund has been claimed has not been submitted. * Non sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ender service to FTO under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885". 14. The petitioner appealed the orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority before the Appellate Authority by filing appeals under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The details of the said appeals are as under: S.No. Order No. Period Amount 1. Appeal No. 269/GST/Appeal-1/East/2021 May 2019 to June 2020 2,99,96,517/- 2. Appeal No. 270/GST/Appeal-1/East/2021 April, 2019 70,75,578/- 3. Appeal No. 271/GST/Appeal-1/East/2021 September 2018 to March 2019 3,08,08,847/- 4. Appeal No. 322/GST/Appeal-1/East/2021 July 2020 to October 2020 33,57,782/- Total 7,12,38,724/- 15. The said appeals were rejected by the impugned order. 16. The first and foremost question to be addressed is whether the claims made by the petitioner are barred by limitation. The petitioner's refund claims were rejected on the ground that the petitioner had received payments for part of the services rendered prior to issuance of the invoices and therefore, claims in respect of invoices issued more than two years prior to the date of the applications were barred by limitation. 17. In terms of Section 54(1) of the CGST Act, a c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 54(1) of the CGST Act. In terms of the said Notification, the period commencing from 01.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 is required to be excluded for computing the period of limitation. 20. In view of the above, the controversy whether the petitioner had made the claims within the period of limitation, is no longer a contentious issue. 21. The next issue to be examined is whether the services in question constitute 'export of services' within the meaning of Section 2(6) of the IGST Act. It is the petitioner's case that FTOs are recipient of services in question and since they are located outside India, the place of supply of services is outside India in terms of Section 13 of the IGST Act. According to the Revenue, the place of service is in India by virtue of Section 13(3)(a) of the IGST Act. According to the Revenue, the recipient of the services are subscribers of FTOs and their presence in India is necessary for availing the services in question. 22. Concededly, this issue is covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Verizon Communication India Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-III: 2018 (8) GSTL 32. Although the decision in Veri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
