Abhishek Raja "Ram"

@abhishekrajaram

8 months ago

•View on X

š—–š—²š˜€š˜š—®š˜ š—–š—µš—²š—»š—»š—®š—¶ š—„š˜‚š—¹š—¶š—»š—“ š—¼š—» š—„š—²š—³š˜‚š—»š—± š—–š—¹š—®š—¶š—ŗ š—³š—¼š—æ š—˜š˜…š—½š—¼š—æš˜š˜€ šŸ“¢ š—§š—µš—² š—§š—æš—¶š—Æš˜‚š—»š—®š—¹ š—µš—²š—¹š—±: "Refund claims for exports cannot be denied based on photocopies of invoices. Appeal allowed."

šŸ” š—™š—®š—°š˜š˜€: š—”š—½š—½š—²š—¹š—¹š—®š—»š˜: M/s. Core Minerals š—œš˜€š˜€š˜‚š—²: Refund claims cannot be denied solely for non-submission of original invoices if photocopies meet Notification No. 17/2009-S.T. requirements for services used in exporting goods. Appeal allowed.

āš–ļø š—š˜‚š—±š—“š—²š—ŗš—²š—»š˜: The Tribunal ruled that Notification No. 17/2009-S.T. does not mandate original invoices for refund claims. The appellant provided sufficient documents, including photocopies, meeting the Notification's requirements. The rejection by lower authorities was deemed erroneous as it relied on criteria not specified in the subordinate legislation. Refund was granted.

šŸ“œ š—–š—®š˜€š—² š—œš—»š—³š—¼š—æš—ŗš—®š˜š—¶š—¼š—»: š—§š—¶š˜š—¹š—²: M/s. Core Minerals vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax š—¢š—æš—±š—²š—æ š——š—®š˜š—²: 22 February 2023 šŸ“œ This ruling affirms that refunds cannot be denied solely due to submission of photocopied invoices if the notification requirements are otherwise met.

More from @abhishekrajaramReply on X

Page created with TweetHunter

Write your own