Refund for Export of Services Cannot Be Denied When eBRC/FIRC Submitted

Case Details: Mavenir Systems (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India [2025] 181 taxmann.com 197 (Karnataka)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

S.R. Krishna Kumar, J.
Rohan Shah, Senior Counsel, Mohammed Anajwalla & Sandeep Huilgol, Advs. for the Petitioner.
Aravind V. Chavan, Adv. & H. Shanthi Bhushan, ASGI for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner exported services without payment of tax and filed refund claims of unutilised ITC under Section 54 of the CGST Act/Karnataka GST Act. The jurisdictional authority sanctioned the refund. In replies to the SCNs issued during departmental review, the petitioner submitted eBRCs (electronic bank realisation certificates) and FIRCs (foreign inward remittance certificates) with particulars; however, the appellate authority set aside the sanctions and rejected the refund on the ground of alleged non-production of these documents. Parallel recovery proceedings culminated in an adjudication order and issuance of DRC-07. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the finding of the appellate authority that eBRCs/FIRCs were not produced was factually incorrect because the petitioner’s replies on record enclosed such documents. The court further held that details of foreign remittances were available with the departmental authorities, and alleged non-production could not defeat a refund claim for export of services under Section 54 of the CGST Act/Karnataka GST Act, Section 16 of the IGST Act, and Rule 89 of the CGST Rules/Karnataka GST Rules. The court held that the impugned appellate orders, SCN, adjudication order, and recovery notices were unsustainable. It accordingly directed the departmental authorities to grant the refund as originally sanctioned along with applicable interest.

List of Cases Reviewed

Nokia Solutions and Networks India (P.) Ltd. v. Pr. CCT [2025] 170 taxmann.com 65 (Kar) (para 8) followed

List of Cases Referred to

Nokia Solutions and Networks India (P.) Ltd. v. Pr. CCT [2025] 170 taxmann.com 65 (Kar) (para 7)
ABB India Ltd. v. Union of India [2020] 373 ELT 205 (Kar) (para 7)
Handicrafts & Handlooms Exports Corporation of India Ltd. v. Jt. Secretary, M.F. (D.R.) 2018 359 ELT 170 (Mad) (para 7)
Commissioner of Customs v. Jindal Drugs Ltd [2018] 360 ELT 988 (Bom) (para 7)
Zandu Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India [2014] 51 taxmann.com 396/48 GST 746/[2015] 315 ELT 520 (Bom) (para 7)
Adwaith Lakshmi Industries Ltd v. Ministry of Finance 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 22146 (para 7)
Genpact India (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [2022] 144 taxmann.com 201/[2023] 95 GST 46/68 GSTL 3 (Punj & Har) (para 7)
Ernst & Young Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner, CGST Appeals-II [2023] 148 taxmann.com 461/97 GST 820/73 GSTL 161 (Delhi) (para 7)
Ohmi Industries Asia (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. Commissioner, CGST [2023] 150 taxmann.com 409/98 GST 566/75 GSTL 26 (Delhi) (para 7)
Xilinx India Technology Services (P.) Ltd. v. Special Commissioner Zone VIII [2023] 154 taxmann.com 312/99 GST 948/78 GSTL 24 (Delhi) (para 7)
Boks Business Services (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST [2023] 154 taxmann.com 72/100 GST 254/78 GSTL 393 (Delhi) (para 7).