M/S. Adp Private Limited vs The Additional Commissioner Appealsi on 25 August, 2025

Telangana High Court

M/S. Adp Private Limited vs The Additional Commissioner Appealsi on 25 August, 2025

     THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
                              AND
             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN

         WRIT PETITION Nos. 26406 and 26419 of 2024

COMMON ORDER:

Sri Narendra Dave, learned counsel appears for

M/s. Lakshmi Kumaran & Sridharan, learned counsel for

petitioner.

Smt. B. Sapna Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for

Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs appears for

respondent Nos.1 to 3.

2. These two Writ Petitions assail the order-in-appeal

passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals-I),

Hyderabad, respondent No.1, in respect of July, 2020, to

September, 2020, and October, 2020, to December, 2020,

wherein the appellate authority vide common order dated

29.09.2023 has set aside the refund sanction orders dated

02.09.2022 and 07.10.2022 passed by the Deputy

Commissioner of Central Tax, Hyderabad, inter alia holding

that the Refund Sanctioning Authority erred in classifying the

service as export of service without examining nature of
2 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J
W.P.Nos.26406 and 26419 of 2024

service, place of provision of service and the applicability of

sub-section (3) to (13) of Section 13 of Integrated Goods &

Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘IGST Act, 2017‘), on the

question whether the supply qualifies as export and whether

the refund is permissible.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that being

persuaded by the order-in-appeal passed for the above periods,

the Refund Sanctioning Authority has been rejecting the

prayer for refund for subsequent period i.e., April, 2022, to

June, 2022, as would be apparent from the order dated

18.06.2024, Annexure P.12. It is submitted that the application

for sanction of refund has not been undertaken after

independent verification of the claim but being guided by the

common order passed by the Additional Commissioner

(Appeals-I) in the above departmental appeals filed for the

previous year. It is submitted that the petitioner is ready to

approach the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal,

which is going to be constituted on 01.10.2025, for assailing

the impugned appellate orders on all grounds of law and fact

as may be available to the petitioner. However, till then, this
3 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J
W.P.Nos.26406 and 26419 of 2024

Court may be pleased to observe that the claims for refund for

subsequent period should not be rejected simply on the basis

of the order-in-appeal passed in respect of the petitioner for

previous tax periods.

4. Learned counsel for the department submits that the

claim for refund for any subsequent period has to be processed

or adjudicated on verification of such claim on the basis of all

supporting documents, agreements etc. As such, the

apprehension of the petitioner does not warrant any

justification. She submits that the impugned order-in-appeal

passed by the appellate authority is not vulnerable as petitioner

in the instant exercise for the instant claim for refund could not

justify that its claim was fully based on the turnover of zero

rated supply of services as stipulated under Rule 89(4)(D) of

the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (for short ‘the

CGST Rules, 2017’). Moreover, the Refund Sanctioning

Authority had failed to determine the adjusted total turnover as

stipulated in Rule 89(4)(E) of the CGST Rules, 2017, in the

absence of proper verification of the agreements covering the

said tax period to ascertain the nature of provision of services
4 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J
W.P.Nos.26406 and 26419 of 2024

as to whether the export of services under Section 2(6) of

IGST Act. However, she does not object to the prayer of the

writ petitioner to avail the appellate remedy before the GST

Tribunal under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services

Tax Act, 2017.

5. In that view of the matter, both the instant Writ Petitions

are disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the

GST Tribunal which is going to be constituted on 01.10.2025.

However, we deem it proper to observe that while deciding the

petitioner’s claims relating to subsequent period, the Refund

Sanctioning Authority should not be influenced by the

impugned order-in-appeal passed by respondent No.1 for

previous period. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

closed.

____________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ

_____________________
G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J
25th AUGUST, 2025.

kvni