TTEC India Customer Solutions Private Limited VS Deputy Commissioner Of Sales Tax

The petitioner provides customer solution services, primarily to clients located outside India, thus engaging in the export of services as per the GST legislation. Under this framework, the petitioner chose to operate under Subsection 3(a) of Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (the IGST Act), which pertains to zero-rated supplies, including the export of goods or services. By opting for this provision, the petitioner is allowed to export services without the payment of integrated tax, subject to certain conditions and procedures. This regulatory framework supports businesses engaged in international trade by relieving them of the tax burden on exports, thereby encouraging global commerce.

The petitioner is engaged in providing customer solution services, primarily to clients located outside India, and is involved in the export of services as per GST legislation. Under Subsection 3(a) of Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (the IGST Act), the petitioner opted to export services under bond or letter of undertaking without paying integrated tax and subsequently claims refunds for unutilized input tax credit.

On January 27, 2021, the petitioner applied for a refund of unutilized input tax credit amounting to Rs. 2,84,04,175/- for the period from February 2019 to March 2020. This application was assigned to the Deputy Commissioner of the Sales Tax Circle-2 in Ahmedabad. The petitioner supported their refund claim with the necessary documentation as requested by the authority, including the physical copies of Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates (FIRCs) for the payments received during the refund application period.

The petitioner provides customer solution services, predominantly to clients located outside India, and engages in the export of services according to GST legislation. Under Subsection 3(a) of Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (the IGST Act), the petitioner chose to export services using a bond or letter of undertaking without paying integrated tax and subsequently claims refunds for unutilized input tax credit.

On January 27, 2021, the petitioner applied for a refund of unutilized input tax credit amounting to Rs. 2,84,04,175/- for the period from February 2019 to March 2020. The application was assigned to the Deputy Commissioner of the Sales Tax Circle-2 in Ahmedabad. The petitioner substantiated their refund claim with the required documentation as requested by the authority, including the physical copies of Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates (FIRCs) for the payments received during the period covered by the refund application.

The petitioner provides customer solution services primarily to clients outside India and is engaged in exporting these services under GST legislation. Opting for Subsection 3(a) of Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act), the petitioner exports services under bond or letter of undertaking without paying integrated tax, then claims refunds for unutilized input tax credit.

On January 27, 2021, the petitioner applied for a refund of unutilized input tax credit amounting to Rs. 2,84,04,175/- for the period from February 2019 to March 2020. This application was assigned to the Deputy Commissioner of the Sales Tax Circle-2 in Ahmedabad. To support the refund claim, the petitioner provided necessary documents, including physical copies of Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates (FIRCs) for payments received during the refund application period.

On March 24, 2021, in response to a show cause notice, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply via RFD-09, justifying their eligibility for a refund amounting to Rs. 36,85,893/-. During a personal hearing on the same day, the petitioner also made oral submissions. However, the officer in charge went on personal leave, leading to the assignment of the case to another officer who was required to offer a fresh personal hearing opportunity. Due to the pandemic, in-person hearings were not feasible, prompting the petitioner to request virtual hearings on multiple occasions.

The petitioner is engaged in providing customer solution services, predominantly to clients located outside India, and is involved in the export of services as per the GST legislation. Under Subsection 3(a) of Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (the IGST Act), the petitioner opted to export services under bond or letter of undertaking without paying integrated tax and subsequently claims refunds for unutilized input tax credit.

On January 27, 2021, the petitioner applied for a refund of unutilized input tax credit amounting to Rs. 2,84,04,175/- for the period from February 2019 to March 2020. This application was assigned to the Deputy Commissioner of the Sales Tax Circle-2 in Ahmedabad. The petitioner supported their refund claim with the necessary documentation as requested by the authority, including the physical copies of Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates (FIRCs) for the payments received during the refund application period.

On March 24, 2021, the petitioner responded in detail to a show-cause notice via RFD-09, justifying their eligibility for a refund of Rs. 36,85,893/-. During a personal hearing on the same day, the petitioner also made oral submissions. However, the concerned officer proceeded on leave for personal reasons, and the matter was assigned to another officer who was required to provide a fresh opportunity for a personal hearing. Due to the pandemic, the request for a personal hearing was made through a virtual platform.

It is lamented that on May 11/13, 2021, the newly appointed officer, without granting any opportunity for a hearing, passed an order rejecting the entire refund claim amounting to Rs. 2,84,04,175/-. On June 23, 2021, the petitioner attempted to point out the apparent mistake in the impugned order and sought rectification, but no response was received from the respondent.

Therefore, on August 12, 2021, considering the stringent provisions of limitation for filing an appeal as provided under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and not being conversant with the appeal procedures, the petitioner.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: