BA Continuum India Pvt. Ltd VS Union of India

In this petition filed under Articles 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and correctness of five identical orders, all dated June 26, 2020. These orders were issued by respondent No.4 and pertain to five consecutive quarters, covering the period from April 2018 to June 2019. The primary issue at hand is the rejection of the petitioner’s claims for refunds of unutilized input tax credit (ITC).

The petitioner argues that the orders rejecting the refund claims are legally flawed and seeks judicial review of these decisions. The refund claims are based on the petitioner’s contention that they have unutilized ITC, which should be refunded according to the applicable laws and regulations governing the goods and services tax (GST) framework in India.

Key aspects of the petition include:

1. Nature of the Petition: The petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, which empower the High Courts to issue certain writs and exercise supervisory jurisdiction over lower courts and tribunals, respectively.

2. Period Covered: The dispute covers five quarters, specifically from April 2018 to June 2019.

3. Respondent No.4: The orders in question were issued by respondent No.4, whose identity and authority are not specified in the summary but are presumably a tax authority responsible for processing GST refunds.

4. Refund Claims: The core issue revolves around the petitioner’s claim for refunds of unutilized ITC. Under the GST regime, ITC is the credit that businesses can claim for taxes paid on inputs used in the supply of goods or services. When this credit remains unutilized, taxpayers are eligible to claim refunds.

5. Legal Challenge: The petitioner contends that the rejection of their refund claims is not in accordance with the law. They are seeking the court’s intervention to overturn these orders and direct the respondents to process and approve the refund claims.

6. Grounds for Petition: Although the specific legal grounds for the petition are not detailed in the summary, they likely include arguments related to the interpretation of GST laws, procedural fairness, and possibly the violation of the petitioner’s rights under the Constitution.

7. Implications: The outcome of this petition could have broader implications for the petitioner and potentially for other taxpayers in similar situations. A favorable ruling for the petitioner could lead to the approval of their refund claims and set a precedent for how unutilized ITC claims are handled by tax authorities.

In conclusion, this petition seeks judicial intervention to address what the petitioner views as wrongful rejections of their refund claims for unutilized ITC for the period from April 2018 to June 2019. The petitioner is asking the court to annul the orders issued by respondent No.4 and to mandate the processing and approval of their refund claims in accordance with the law.

In this petition filed under Articles 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the legality and correctness of five identical orders dated 26.06.2020, issued by respondent No. 4. These orders reject the petitioner’s claims for refunds of unutilized input tax credit for five quarters from April 2018 to June 2019.

The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in providing information technology (IT) and IT-enabled services to customers located outside India. The company has its registered office in Andheri (East), Mumbai. Under the previous service tax regime, the petitioner was registered with the service tax department. With the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime on 01.07.2017, the petitioner transitioned to the new tax system.

The dispute centers on the rejection of the petitioner’s refund claims for unutilized input tax credit under the GST regime. The petitioner asserts that the orders dated 26.06.2020 are legally and factually incorrect and seeks judicial intervention to overturn these orders and grant the requested refunds.

In the petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a company engaged in providing IT and IT-enabled services to clients outside India, challenges the legality and correctness of five identical orders dated June 26, 2020. These orders, issued by respondent No.4, reject the petitioner’s refund claims for unutilized input tax credit (ITC) for five quarters covering April 2018 to June 2019.

The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, with its registered office in Andheri (East), Mumbai. It was registered under the service tax regime until the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) on July 1, 2017. With the GST implementation, the petitioner migrated to the new tax regime, obtaining a GST identification number in Maharashtra.

The petitioner entered into a master agreement on May 3, 2004, with the Bank of America National Association (BANA), a national banking association in the United States, to provide IT and IT-enabled services. The petitioner availed input tax credits on various input services received for providing these output services. The petitioner claims that the services provided to BANA qualify as “export of service” and “zero-rated supply” under sections 2(6) and 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act).

The petitioner exported the services without payment of tax and subsequently filed refund applications for the unutilized ITC under section 16(3) of the IGST Act. The rejection of these refund claims by respondent No.4 is the subject of the current legal challenge, as the petitioner contends that the denial of the refunds is incorrect and unlawful under the prevailing tax laws.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: