Assessee Directed to File Refund Claim Under ‘Others’ if GSTN Portal Restricts It Under the Category of Export of Services | HC

Case Details: Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. Union of India - [2025] 171 taxmann.com 364 (Bombay)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• B.P. Colabawalla & Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ.
• Darius Shroff, Sr. Adv. & Rahul P. Jain, Adv. for the Petitioner.
• Jitendra Mishra, Sangeeta Yadav & Rupesh Dubey, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, an exporter of services, filed refund claims under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017, which were allowed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals-II), CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai, with these rulings attaining finality. However, the Additional Commissioner (Appeals)-II later rejected similar refund claims, citing lack of invoice correlation due to missing eBRC, invalidity of netting-off as proof of receipt, and foreign currency receipt outside the refund period. The petitioner contested these orders as contrary to settled appellate decisions and in violation of judicial discipline. Additionally, the petitioner argued that if their appeal was allowed, the GSTN portal would not permit re-filing of refund claims under the same category, creating a procedural hurdle. Seeking to quash the impugned orders and ensure compliance with judicial discipline, the petitioner approached the Hon’ble High Court for relief.

High Court Held

The Hon’ble High Court held that the impugned orders were contrary to the principles of judicial discipline as the petitioner’s refund claims were already covered by final and binding appellate and adjudicating authority decisions. Accordingly, the court set aside the impugned orders and directed the Additional Commissioner (Appeals)-II to pass fresh orders in accordance with the law while ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, recognizing the procedural limitation of the GSTN portal, the court directed that if the portal does not permit refund claims under the category “Export of Services,” the petitioner must be allowed to file them under the category “Others.”