Page 257 - GSTL_26th March 2020_Vol 34_Part 4

2020 ] SUBJECT INDEX 751
Refund/Refund Claim (Contd.)
by Respondents - System limitations cannot be justification to deny relief,
to which assessee, legally entitled - Assessee entitled to complete refund -
Section 140 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — Vision
Distribution P. Ltd. v. Commr. of State Goods & Services Tax (Del.) ............... 90
— of accumulated ITC - Zero-rated supply - Scope of restriction - Putting of
unjustified restrictions would go contrary to concept of refund of ITC
relating to zero-rated supply - If exporters are not allowed refund of
taxes paid on domestic products, incentives given to exports would have
no meaning - Rule 89 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 -
Section 54 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Article 226 of
Constitution of India — Pitambra Books Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (Del.) ........ 196
— of IGST - Zero-rated supply - Availment of higher duty drawback -
Revenue relying on C.B.I. & C. Circular No. 37/2018-Cus., dated 9-10-
2018, contending conscious relinquishment of IGST/ITC claims by
exporters - HELD : Circulars issued only to clarify statutory provision
and cannot alter or prevail over statutory provision - Explanation of
provisions of drawback not related to IGST refund - C.B.I. & C. Circular
No. 37/2018-Cus., dated 9-10-2018 inapplicable - Rule 96 of Central
Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - Sections 16 and 54 of Integrated
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Article 226 of Constitution of India —
Precot Meridian Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin (Mad.) ............... 27
— of input tax credit, application seeking ruling with regard to documents to
be filed, not maintainable - See under ADVANCE RULING .......... 329
— of Service Tax - Accumulated Cenvat credit - Under Notification No.
5/2006-C.E. (N.T.) - Export of Information Technology and Software
Services - Commissioner (Appeals) found no documentary evidence such
as utilization certificate provided by overseas customers - However,
assessee pleading correlation between FIRC’s and export invoices -
HELD : Records cannot be brushed aside - Since, declaration stating that
services used for purpose of business outside India, not before
Commissioner (Appeals), matter should go back to Commissioner
(Appeals) to appreciate evidence submitted by assessee - Also, issue of
nexus between input service and output service requires to be seen in
light of ratios of judgments by Tribunal and Higher Courts and Circulars
issued by Board - Hence, matter requires to be remanded to lower
authorities - Rules 2(l) and 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 — Samsung R & D
Institute India Bangalore Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E. & S.T., Bangalore-I (Tri. - Bang.) ......... 213
— of Service Tax - Accumulated Cenvat credit - Under Notification No.
5/2006-C.E. (N.T.) - Export of Information Technology and Software
Services - Rejection of claim for filing of improper invoices, forms and
discrepancy in figures between two sets of documents, etc. - HELD : As
long as refund claim in order and necessary documents as required as
per law and eligibility of particular service for refund not disputed,
minor discrepancies not to be hindrance - Impugned order set aside -
Rules 2(l) and 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 — Samsung R & D Institute India
Bangalore Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E. & S.T., Bangalore-I (Tri. - Bang.) ................ 213
— Renting of immovable property services - In earlier round of litigation,
Tribunal in its order had held that refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit
Rules, 2004 was not admissible to 100% EOU on aforesaid services -
There was no further directions in said order on admissibility of refund
under any other provision - Thus assessee’s filing fresh refund

GST LAW TIMES  26th March 2020  353