01Facts
The petitioner sought a refund of ₹6,07,00,190 under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, 2017.
p. 3The Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim, observing that although the petitioner was registered in Karnataka, the Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates (FIRCs) identified an address in Maharashtra.
pp. 3–5The petitioner maintained that the exports and receipt of remittances were connected to Bengaluru, and that the Maharashtra address appeared because of its registration with the Director General of Foreign Trade.
pp. 3–5It also said that the export location had mistakenly been stated as Haryana.
pp. 3–5The petitioner challenged the rejection order under Article 226 of the Constitution
pp. 3–5The High Court noted that the authority had not examined whether the FIRCs corresponded to invoices for exports from Bengaluru and remittances received there.
p. 602Issues
i.1. Whether the refund rejection could stand when the authority had not examined whether the FIRCs corresponded to invoices for exports from Bengaluru and remittances received in Bengaluru
pp. 5–6ii.2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to an immediate direction for payment of the claimed refund, or whether the claim should be reconsidered by the authority
pp. 6–803Law Applied
Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017, read with Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, 2017, governs refund claims
p. 3Section 16 of the IGST Act was cited in the petitioner’s prayer for relief
p. 2The Court relied on M/s Nokia Solutions and Networks India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Principal Commissioner of Central Tax (2024 SCC OnLine Kar 29294), cited for the proposition that rejecting a refund claim because of an error in an FIRC may be arbitrary where the relevant export and remittance circumstances have not been properly considered.
p. 5The authority must assess the connection between the invoices, export proceeds and FIRCs; an address appearing on an FIRC should not be treated as determinative without considering the supporting reconciliation and the address registered with the Director General of Foreign Trade.
pp. 6–7Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 16
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 54
04Reasoning
The rejection rested on the difference between the petitioner’s Karnataka registration and the Maharashtra address shown on the FIRCs.
pp. 5–6But the authority had not examined whether the invoices related to exports from Bengaluru and whether the corresponding remittances were received by the petitioner’s Bengaluru bankers.
pp. 5–6The Court held that, if the petitioner could reasonably demonstrate those connections, the FIRC address alone would not justify rejection.
pp. 6–7Because the authority had not considered these matters, the Court set aside the order and directed reconsideration rather than determining the refund claim itself.
pp. 6–705Holding
The petition was allowed in part.
p. 7The refund rejection order dated 8 May 2026 was quashed, and the proceedings were restored for reconsideration.
p. 7The petitioner was given liberty to file a certified copy of the order, together with a reconciliation of invoice numbers, corresponding account remittances and related FIRCs, within one week of receiving the order.
pp. 7–8The authority was directed to consider that reconciliation, provide a personal hearing if found expedient, and communicate its decision within eight weeks of receiving the certified copy.
pp. 7–8The Court did not direct immediate payment of the refund.
pp. 7–8Original Court PDF
M/S NESS DIGITAL ENGINEERING (INDIA) PVT LTD.,vsASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX,
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
