IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
***
+W.P.Nos.15351, 15358, 15387, 15401, 15405, 15407, 15410, 15414,
15416 & 15419 of 2023
W.P.Nos.15351, 15358, 15401, 15405, 15407, 15414 & 15419 of 2023
Between:
# 1. M/s. SEIL Energy India Limited
(formerly M/s. Sembcorp Energy India Limited),
Pyanampuram/ Nelatur Village,
Muthukur Mandal, Nellore,
Andhra Pradesh 524344,
–
Rep. by its Chief Financial Officer,
Mr. Ajay Bagri.
Petitioner
…
AND
$ 1. The Union of India,
Through Principal Secretary to the Government,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue,
Udyog Bhavan, North Block,
New Delhi 110 001.
–
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax,
Nellore G.S.T. Division, D. No.24-7-48,
GST Bhavan, Annamayya Circle,
M.S.R. Layout, Mini By-Pass Road,
Nellore 524 003.
–
3. The Principal Commissioner of Central Tax,
Guntur CGST Commissionerate
Central Revenue Building,
K.V. Thota, Guntur 522 004.
–
... Respondents
W.P.Nos.15387, 15410 & 15416 of 2023
Between:
# 1. M/s. SEIL Energy India Limited
(formerly M/s. Sembcorp Energy India Limited),
Pyanampuram/ Nelatur Village,
Muthukur Mandal, Nellore,
2
RRR, J & HN, J
W.P.No.15351 of 2023 & batch
Andhra Pradesh 524344,
–
Rep. by its Chief Financial Officer,
Mr. Ajay Bagri.
Petitioner
…
AND
$ 1. The Union of India,
Through Principal Secretary to the Government,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue,
Udyog Bhavan, North Block,
New Delhi 110 001.
–
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax,
Nellore G.S.T. Division, D. No.24-7-48,
GST Bhavan, Annamayya Circle,
M.S.R. Layout, Mini By-Pass Road,
Nellore 524 003.
–
3. Additional Commissioner, GST Appeals,
D. No.33015, Ring Road,
Guntur - 522 006
4. The Principal Commissioner of Central Tax,
Guntur CGST Commissionerate
Central Revenue Building,
K.V. Thota, Guntur 522 004.
–
... Respondents
Date of Order pronounced on : 31.07.2024
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
And
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No
May be allowed to see the judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : Yes/No
to Law Reporters/Journals:
3. Whether The Lordship wishes to see the fair copy : Yes/No
Of the Judgment?
3
RRR, J & HN, J
W.P.No.15351 of 2023 & batch
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
*
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
And
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
+ W.P.Nos.15351, 15358, 15387, 15401, 15405, 15407, 15410, 15414,
15416 & 15419 of 2023
% Dated:31.07.2024
W.P.Nos.15351, 15358, 15401, 15405, 15407, 15414 & 15419 of 2023
# 1. M/s. SEIL Energy India Limited
(formerly M/s. Sembcorp Energy India Limited),
Pyanampuram/ Nelatur Village,
Muthukur Mandal, Nellore,
Andhra Pradesh 524344,
–
Rep. by its Chief Financial Officer,
Mr. Ajay Bagri.
Petitioner
…
AND
$ 1. The Union of India,
Through Principal Secretary to the Government,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue,
Udyog Bhavan, North Block,
New Delhi 110 001.
–
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax,
Nellore G.S.T. Division, D. No.24-7-48,
GST Bhavan, Annamayya Circle,
M.S.R. Layout, Mini By-Pass Road,
Nellore 524 003.
–
3. The Principal Commissioner of Central Tax,
Guntur CGST Commissionerate
Central Revenue Building,
K.V. Thota, Guntur 522 004.
–
... Respondents
4
RRR, J & HN, J
W.P.No.15351 of 2023 & batch
W.P.Nos.15387, 15410 & 15416 of 2023
Between:
# 1. M/s. SEIL Energy India Limited
(formerly M/s. Sembcorp Energy India Limited),
Pyanampuram/ Nelatur Village,
Muthukur Mandal, Nellore,
Andhra Pradesh 524344,
–
Rep. by its Chief Financial Officer,
Mr. Ajay Bagri.
Petitioner
…
AND
$ 1. The Union of India,
Through Principal Secretary to the Government,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue,
Udyog Bhavan, North Block,
New Delhi 110 001.
–
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax,
Nellore G.S.T. Division, D. No.24-7-48,
GST Bhavan, Annamayya Circle,
M.S.R. Layout, Mini By-Pass Road,
Nellore 524 003.
–
3. Additional Commissioner, GST Appeals,
D. No.33015, Ring Road,
Guntur - 522 006
4. The Principal Commissioner of Central Tax,
Guntur CGST Commissionerate
Central Revenue Building,
K.V. Thota, Guntur 522 004.
–
... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Lakshmi Kumaran Sridharan
(in all writ petitions)
5
RRR, J & HN, J
W.P.No.15351 of 2023 & batch
^Counsel for Respondents : Sri Y N Vivekananda
(In all writ petitions)
: Sri V. Venakata Nagaraju
(In all writ petitions)
: Sri Suresh Kumar Routhu
(In W.P.Nos.15358, 15387,
15410,15416 & 15419 of 2023)
<GIST :
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred:
6
RRR, J & HN, J
W.P.No.15351 of 2023 & batch
APHC010299472023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3488]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 15351/2023
Between:
Seil Energy India Limited ...PETITIONER
AND
The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. LAKSHMI KUMARAN SRIDHARAN
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. V VENKATA NAGA RAJU(CENTRAL GOVT
COUNSEL)
2. Y N VIVEKANANDA
7
RRR, J & HN, J
W.P.No.15351 of 2023 & batch
APHC010299502023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3488]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 15358/2023
Between:
Seil Energy India Limited ...PETITIONER
AND
Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. LAKSHMI KUMARAN SRIDHARAN
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. V VENKATA NAGA RAJU(CENTRAL GOVT
COUNSEL)
2. SURESH KUMAR ROUTHU (SR SC FOR CBIC)
3. Y N VIVEKANANDA
8
RRR, J & HN, J
W.P.No.15351 of 2023 & batch
APHC010299322023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3488]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 15387/2023
Between:
Siel Energy India Limited ...PETITIONER
AND
The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. LAKSHMI KUMARAN SRIDHARAN
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. V VENKATA NAGA RAJU(CENTRAL GOVT
COUNSEL)
2. SURESH KUMAR ROUTHU (SR SC FOR CBIC)
9
RRR, J & HN, J
W.P.No.15351 of 2023 & batch
APHC010299342023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3488]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 15401/2023
Between:
Seil Energy India Limited ...PETITIONER
AND
The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. LAKSHMI KUMARAN SRIDHARAN
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. V VENKATA NAGA RAJU(CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)
2. Y N VIVEKANANDA
10
RRR, J & HN, J
W.P.No.15351 of 2023 & batch
APHC010299552023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3488]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 15405/2023
Between:
M/s. Seil Energy India Limited ...PETITIONER
AND
The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. LAKSHMI KUMARAN SRIDHARAN
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. V VENKATA NAGA RAJU(CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)
2. Y N VIVEKANANDA
11
RRR, J & HN, J
W.P.No.15351 of 2023 & batch
APHC010299522023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3488]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 15407/2023
Between:
Seil Energy India Limited ...PETITIONER
AND
The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. LAKSHMI KUMARAN SRIDHARAN
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. V VENKATA NAGA RAJU(CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)
2. Y N VIVEKANANDA
12
RRR, J & HN, J
W.P.No.15351 of 2023 & batch
APHC010299362023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3488]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 15410/2023
Between:
M/s Seil Energy India Limited ...PETITIONER
AND
The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. LAKSHMI KUMARAN SRIDHARAN
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. V VENKATA NAGA RAJU(CENTRAL GOVT
COUNSEL)
2. SURESH KUMAR ROUTHU (SR SC FOR CBIC)
3. Y N VIVEKANANDA
13
RRR, J & HN, J
W.P.No.15351 of 2023 & batch
APHC010299442023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3488]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 15414/2023
Between:
Seil Energy India Limited ...PETITIONER
AND
The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. LAKSHMI KUMARAN SRIDHARAN
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. V VENKATA NAGA RAJU(CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)
2. Y N VIVEKANANDA
14
RRR, J & HN, J
W.P.No.15351 of 2023 & batch
APHC010299412023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3488]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 15416/2023
Between:
Seil Energy India Limited ...PETITIONER
AND
The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. LAKSHMI KUMARAN SRIDHARAN
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. V VENKATA NAGA RAJU(CENTRAL GOVT
COUNSEL)
2. SURESH KUMAR ROUTHU (SR SC FOR CBIC)
3. Y N VIVEKANANDA
15
RRR, J & HN, J
W.P.No.15351 of 2023 & batch
APHC010299592023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3488]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 15419/2023
Between:
Seil Energy India Limited ...PETITIONER
AND
The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. LAKSHMI KUMARAN SRIDHARAN
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. V VENKATA NAGA RAJU(CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)
2. SURESH KUMAR ROUTHU (SR SC FOR CBIC)
3. Y N VIVEKANANDA
16
RRR, J & HN, J
W.P.No.15351 of 2023 & batch
The Court made the following common order:
Raghunandan Rao)
(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R
M/s. SEIL Energy India Limited is the petitioner in all these writ
petitions. As the same issue is raised in all these writ petitions, they are
being disposed of, by way of this common order.
2. Heard Sri Raghavan Ramabadran, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of Sri Lakshmi Kumaran Sridharan, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Sri Y.N. Vivekananda, learned counsel for the
respondents.
3. The petitioner generates electrical power and sells the
same to its customers. For the period January 2022 to October 2022,
the petitioner had been selling/supplying electricity to M/s. Bangladesh
Power Development Board. The petitioner, contending that such supply
of electricity would amount to an export sale, which is exempted from tax
under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (herein referred
IGST Act , had sought refund of the input tax credits available to
to as “ ”)
the petitioner for these months.
4. The petitioner had filed separate applications for refund, for
each month for the period January 2022 to October 2022. These
17
RRR, J & HN, J
W.P.No.15351 of 2023 & batch
applications were not accepted on the ground that the petitioner had not
filed the bill of shipping for supply of electricity. This issue was raised by
way of a show cause notice by the respondents. By this time, earlier
orders of rejection, on the same ground, had been challenged before
this Court by way of W.P.No.11194 of 2021 and batch. The contention
raised by the petitioner, in those Writ Petitions, was that electricity is an
intangible and the question of obtaining the bill of shipping for such
intangibles cannot arise. While these cases were pending, there was an
amendment to Rule 89 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules,
2017 substituting the requirement
(herein referred to as “CGST Rules”)
of producing the bill of shipping with the requirement of furnishing the
Regional Energy Account maintained by
(herein referred to as “REA”)
the concerned Regional Load Dispatch Center, as proof of export, even
if the bill of shipping is not produced.
5. The question of whether such amendment to the Rule is
prospective or retrospective had remained and the same was answered
in a Judgment dated 26.08.2022 passed by a Hon‟ble Division Bench of
this Court in W.P.No.11194 of 2021 and batch. This Court had taken the
view that the said amendment should be treated as retrospective and
the benefit of the amended Rule would be available to the petitioner.
18
RRR, J & HN, J
W.P.No.15351 of 2023 & batch
nd
6. The 2 respondent, who had earlier issued a show cause
notice requiring the production of bill of shipping, amended the said
notice and called upon the petitioner to produce the REA account
maintained by the Regional Load Dispatch Center for processing the
applications. Consequently, the petitioner produced the said REA
account for the periods January 2022 to October 2022. However, these
nd
applications were rejected by the 2 respondent by various orders. The
nd
2 respondent took the view that Rule 89 of the CGST Rules requires
the dealer to place necessary materials such as input tax credit, turnover
of zero rated supply of goods, adjusted total turnover, etc. for the
“relevant period”. He also took the view that the relevant period would be
nd
the month for which the refund is sought. The 2 respondent noticed
that the petitioner, while applying for refund for the month of January
2022 was filing the REA for the month of December 2021 and so on.
7. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said orders of
rd
rejection had filed appeals, in some of these cases, before the 3
respondent, who had dismissed the appeals accepting the contention of
nd
the 2 respondent. The petitioner had filed appeals in W.P.Nos.15410,
15387 & 15416 of 2023 and has approached this Court directly against
the orders in original in the remaining writ petitions.
19
RRR, J & HN, J
W.P.No.15351 of 2023 & batch
8. Sri Raghavan Ramabadran, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner contends that the view taken by the Primary Authority and
the Appellate Authority is incorrect. He would take us to the provisions of
the Act and the Rules to contend that supply of electricity, which would
fall within the ambit of the definition of continuous supply of r/w
„ goods‟
with other provisions of the Act requires the supplier of such goods to
raise an invoice, and it is only on that date, that the supply is said to
have occurred. He would submit that since the invoice for the previous
th
month was being filed by the 7 day of the succeeding month, the REA
account of the previous month would be the relevant REA for
considering the application for refund for the succeeding month.
9. Sri Y. N. Vivekananda, learned counsel for the respondents
would support the view taken by the Primary Authority and the Appellate
Authority. He would submit that the Rule is clear and unambiguous and
it is only the REA for the month for which refund is being sought that can
be looked into for deciding whether a refund is payable or not. He would
submit that as the petitioner had not filed the REA for the relevant
period, the order of rejection cannot be faulted.
20
RRR, J & HN, J
W.P.No.15351 of 2023 & batch
Consideration of the Court:
10. A brief review of the provisions of law would be necessary
before going into this question. The CGST Act provides for taxation of
supply of sale of goods and supply of services of various kinds. One
such category would be continuous supply of goods or continuous
supply of services. The term continuous supply of goods is defined
“ ”
under Section 2 (32) of the CGST Act as follows:
(32) "continuous supply of goods" means a supply of
goods which is provided, or agreed to be provided,
continuously or on recurrent basis, under a contract,
whether or not by means of a wire, cable, pipeline or
other conduit, and for which the supplier invoices the
recipient on a regular or periodic basis and includes
supply of such goods as the Government may, subject
to such conditions, as it may, by notification, specify;
11. The question as to how such continuous supply of goods is
to be taxed would arise because the supply of goods would be in a
continuous form and the taxing authority would have to fix a point of time
where the value of supply of such goods can be assessed and taxed.
For this purpose, the legislature, under Section 12 of the CGST Act,
fixed the time of supply. This provision reads as follows:
21
RRR, J & HN, J
W.P.No.15351 of 2023 & batch
(1) The liability to pay tax on goods shall arise at the
time of supply, as determined in accordance with the
provisions of this section.
(2) The time of supply of goods shall be the earlier of the
following dates, namely:--
(a) the date of issue of invoice by the supplier or the last
date on which he is required, under sub-section (1) of
section 31, to issue the invoice with respect to the
supply; or
(b) the date on which the supplier receives the payment
with respect to the supply:
Provided that where the supplier of taxable goods
receives an amount up to one thousand rupees in
excess of the amount indicated in the tax invoice, the
time of supply to the extent of such excess amount shall,
at the option of the said supplier, be the date of issue of
invoice in respect of such excess amount.
Explanation 1.--For the purposes of clauses (a) and (b),
"supply" shall be deemed to have been made to the
extent it is covered by the invoice or, as the case may
be, the payment.
Explanation 2.--or the purposes of clause (b), "the date
on which the supplier receives the payment" shall be the
date on which the payment is entered in his books of
account or the date on which the payment is credited to
his bank account, whichever is earlier.
22
RRR, J & HN, J
W.P.No.15351 of 2023 & batch
(3) In case of supplies in respect of which tax is paid or
liable to be paid on reverse charge basis, the time of
supply shall be the earliest of the following dates,
namely:--
(a) the date of the receipt of goods; or
(b) the date of payment as entered in the books of
account of the recipient or the date on which the
payment is debited in his bank account, whichever is
earlier; or
(c) the date immediately following thirty days from the
date of issue of invoice or any other document, by
whatever name called, in lieu thereof by the supplier:
Provided that where it is not possible to determine the
time of supply under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause
(c), the time of supply shall be the date of entry in the
books of account of the recipient of supply.
(4) In case of supply of vouchers by a supplier, the time
of supply shall be--
(a) the date of issue of voucher, if the supply is
identifiable at that point; or
(b) the date of redemption of voucher, in all other cases.
(5) Where it is not possible to determine the time of
supply under the provisions of sub-section (2) or sub-
section (3) or sub-section (4), the time of supply shall--
23
RRR, J & HN, J
W.P.No.15351 of 2023 & batch
(a) in a case where a periodical return has to be filed, be
the date on which such return is to be filed; or
(b) in any other case, be the date on which the tax is
paid.
(6) The time of supply to the extent it relates to an
addition in the value of supply by way of interest, late fee
or penalty for delayed payment of any consideration
shall be the date on which the supplier receives such
addition in value.
12. Section 12 (2) of the CGST Act provides for fixing the time
of supply on either of two eventualities. The time of supply can be fixed
on the date when the invoice for such supply is prepared and sent by the
supplier or on the date on which the payment for such supply is made by
the person receiving such goods. However, the legislature has also
stipulated that the earlier of these two eventualities would be treated as
the time of supply for the purpose of assessment of tax. Section 12(2)
also states that the point of time when the invoice can be raised would
have to be in accord with the Section 31 (4) of the CGST Act, which
reads as follows:
(4) In case of continuous supply of goods, where successive
statements of accounts or successive payments are involved,
the invoice shall be issued before or at the time each such
24
RRR, J & HN, J
W.P.No.15351 of 2023 & batch
statement is issued or, as the case may be, each such
payment is received.
13. A reading of these provisions makes it clear that the time of
continuous supply of goods is not relevant and it is only the point of time
when the invoice is raised or price is paid, whichever is earlier, that
would be relevant for determining the point of tax in time and
consequently, the period of supply of goods for which an invoice is
raised should be taken into account, rather than the point of time at
which the invoice has been raised
, should be taken as the “relevant
.
period”
14. In the present cases, the undisputed fact is that the
petitioner was required to raise an invoice for the supply of electricity for
th
a particular month by the 7 day of the succeeding month. This
stipulation is contained in the power purchase agreement executed
between the petitioner and M/s. Bangladesh Power Development Board.
This would mean that though supply of electricity was done in the month
of December, the time of supply, by legal fiction, would be the date on
which the bill was presented in the month of January and so on and so
forth.
25
RRR, J & HN, J
W.P.No.15351 of 2023 & batch
15. In such circumstances, furnishing of the REA for the
preceding month, while making an application for refund in the
succeeding month would be in accord with the said provisions of the Act
and Rules.
16. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are allowed, setting aside
the orders in appeal and the orders in original contained in the table set
nd
out in the present order, with a direction to the 2 respondent to
consider the applications of the petitioner for grant of refund, if
everything else is in accord with the requirements, by permitting the
petitioner to produce the REA of the previous month as the proof of
export for the refund applications made in the succeeding month. There
shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand
closed.
________________________
R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
______________
HARINATH.N, J
MJA
26
RRR, J & HN, J
W.P.No.15351 of 2023 & batch
142
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NOs: 15351, 15358, 15387, 15401, 15405, 15407,
15410, 15414, 15416 & 15419 of 2023
Justice R Raghunandan Rao)
(per Hon’ble Sri
31.07.2024
MJA