Facts of the Case-
A company exported goods between September and December 2021.
They had a valid LUT (Letter of Undertaking) dated 26 August 2021—before the first export.
They later applied for a refund of unused input tax credit (ITC) on these zero-rated exports.
The GST officer rejected the refund saying: your claim period includes July 2021 but your LUT is dated 26 August 2021.
Background
The petitioner purchased cordless sets/other items, paid GST, and exported the goods between September and December 2021 under LUT. A refund of unutilised ITC under Section 54 read with Rule 89 was filed on 12 August 2023. Despite submitting all documents sought through the SCN, the adjudicating authority rejected the refund on a single ground: that the LUT was filed on 26 August 2021 while the claim period covered July–December 2021.
The petitioner pointed out the obvious—exports began only on 13 September 2021—so the LUT pre-dated the first export, satisfying Rule 96A. The department sought a remand; the Court examined the record.
What the Court noted
Zero-rated exports are meant to be facilitated. Rule 89 clearly sets out the documentary scheme for refunds. Where all documents are filed and exports are not in dispute, withholding refunds on hyper-technical grounds defeats the statute’s objective.
All documents were on record. The impugned order itself (para 4) acknowledges that “the taxpayer has filed all the relevant documents” as per CBIC Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST (18-11-2019).
LUT timing was compliant. The LUT dated 26-08-2021 preceded the first export (from 13-09-2021). Using LUT timing as a reason to reject the refund was specious and untenable.
Systemic concern. The Court remarked that refund processing is often held up via serial SCNs and procedural quibbles, which is impermissible, especially for zero-rated supplies.
Court Order-
The Court cancelled the rejection order.
Refund to be processed and credited with statutory interest within two weeks of the order.
If refund is not credited after 03-09-2025, interest @ 12% becomes payable.
Commissioner, DT&T, GNCTD to be informed to ensure exporters are not repeatedly subjected to hardship.
GST Case Law Alkesh Tacker HUF Versus Union Of India
Citation-2025 TAXONATION 2113 (DELHI) (Click here to read full case law)
SUBSCRIBE GST E-LIBRARY (INDIA'S HIGHEST GST CASE LAW DATA)
FOR MORE UPDATE ON GST/ IT JOIN OUR FREE WHATSAPP GROUP BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK https://chat.whatsapp.com/C8VB6F6VHme3A061UDQKhj
