Under GST, Exports and supplies to SEZ are zero rated as per section 16 of the IGST Act, 2017. By zero rating it is meant that the entire supply chain of a particular zero-rated supply is tax free i.e. there is no burden of tax either on the input side or output side. This is in contrast with exempted supplies, where only output is exempted from tax but tax is suffered on the input side.
Under GST, exports and supplies to SEZ are zero rated as per Section 16 of the IGST Act, 2017. By zero rating, it is meant that the entire supply chain of a particular supply is tax free, i.e., there is no burden of tax either on the input side or output side.
The essence of zero rating is to make Indian goods and services competitive in the international market by ensuring that taxes do not get added to the cost of exports. The objective of zero rating of exports and supplies to SEZ is sought to be achieved through the provision contained in Section 16(3) of the IGST Act, 2017, which mandates that a registered person making a zero rated supply is eligible to claim refund in accordance with the provisions of section 54 of the WBGST Act, 2017.
The normal refund application in GST RFD-01 is not applicable in this case. There is no need for filing a separate refund claim as the shipping bill filed by the exporter is itself treated as a refund claim. As per rule 96 of the WBGST Rules, 2017, the shipping bill filed by an exporter shall be deemed to be an application for refund of integrated tax paid on the goods exported out of India and such application shall be deemed to have been filed only when:- (a) the person in charge of the conveyance carrying the export goods duly files an export manifest or an export report covering the number and the date of shipping bills or bills of export; and (b) the applicant has furnished a valid return in FORM GSTR-3 or FORM GSTR3B, as the case may be.
As per Rule 96 of the CGST Rules 2017, dealing with refund of IGST paid on goods exported out of India, the shipping bill filed by an exporter shall be deemed to be an application for refund of integrated tax paid on the goods exported out of India, once both the export general manifest ( EGM ) and valid return in Form GSTR-3 or Form GSTR3B, as the case may be, has been fded. Thus, once the shipping bill and the EGM is filed and a valid return is filed, the application for refund shall be considered to have been filed and refund shall be processed.
The IGST refund module has been designed to have an in-built mechanism to automatically process and grant refund after validating the shipping bill data available in ICES against the GST return data transmitted by GSTN. Manual intervention would be limited to only exceptional cases where automatic validation becomes impossible due to some technical errors. Such exceptional cases would be only those which would be approved by the Board and the procedure in those cases would be separately laid out.
Now lets analyse all the stories published in taxscan.in in relation to IGST refund.
The Delhi High Court recently held that interest of IGST refund could not be denied under section 56 of DGST/CGST Act, 201, even if it was not claimed in the refund application.
The bench observed that Payment of interest under Section 56 of the Act being statutory is automatically payable without any claim, in case the refund is not made within 60 days from the date of receipt of the application. Payment of interest does not depend on the claim made by petitioner and therefore cannot be denied on the ground of waiver on the claim of interest in FORM GST-RFD-01 Therefore the division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja, held that even though, the petitioner may not have claimed interest in his refund applications, his claim of interest cannot be denied under Section 56 of the Act as the same is mandatory and payable automatically in terms of the provisions of the Act.
The Gujarat High Court directed to follow Court orders in Integrated Goods and Services Tax ( IGST ) refund cases and observed that directions given by High Courts should be followed by Authorities.
A Division Bench of Justices Bhargav D Karia and Niral R Mehta observed that “The respondent-authorities and the respondent-authorities had no reason to take a different view than the directions issued by this Court while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondent-authorities are bound by the directions issued by this Court and therefore, the impugned order is hereby, quashed and set aside. The respondent-authorities are directed to comply with the directions issued by this Court while sanctioning the refund of IGST after deducting the differential duty drawback with 7% simple interest.”
In a recent case, the Delhi bench of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) set aside the order of revoking the customs broker license against the allegation of fraudulent Integrated Goods and Service Tax ( IGST ) Refund. It was observed that the responsibility of the customs broker was fulfilled once the verification of the address was done.
A two-member bench comprising Ms Binu Tamta, Member ( Judicial ) and Ms Hemambika R Priya, Member( Technical ) observed that under Regulation 10(n) the Customs Broker is required to verify the functioning of the client at the declared address using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information. This responsibility, again, can be fulfilled using documents data or information so long as they are reliable, independent and authentic. Nothing in this clause requires the Customs Broker to physically go to the premises of the client to ensure that they are functioning at the premises.
The Kerala High Court directed to issue materials to file rely to the show cause notice ( SCN ) in the matter regarding an allegation of wrong availment of IGST refund.
A Single Bench of Justice P Gopinath observed that “Therefore, this writ petition will stand disposed of directing that, the petitioner or an authorized representative of the petitioner shall appear before the officer, who issued show cause notices at the designated time on 30-01-2024. On that date, it is open to the petitioner to file a request detailing the documents that are required by the petitioner for the purposes of filing a proper reply to the notices. The officer shall consider the request for providing documents and shall provide such documents to the petitioner within a reasonable time.”
A Single Bench of the Madras High Court has allowed clubbing of Integrated Goods and Services Tax ( IGST ) refund claims on export of zero rated supplies, beyond a calendar month, while remanding the matter for reconsideration of the GST Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) refund claim.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, in the detailed order, found merit in the petitioner’s arguments. The court observed that the rejection based on the claim being spread across different financial years was not in line with statutory provisions. Referring to Circular No.37/11/2018-GST, Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy emphasised that claims spanning more than one calendar month were permissible. The stipulation restricting claims to a single financial year, as struck down by the Delhi High Court in Pitambra Books Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, was highlighted.
The Gujarat High Court has issued the notice to Centre and GSTN on a petition challenging the provisions of Central Goods and Services Tax ( CGST ) Act, seeking interest for delayed IGST Refunds.
The petitioner M/s Saraf Natural Stone has filed the writ petition before the Gujarat High Court seeking directions against GST department for providing the interest on the delayed refund that is beyond 60 days and compensation in for the delay of provisional refund.
The Bombay High Court directed the GST Authority to process the application for IGST refund and pass a reasoned order as no order was passed.
The division bench headed by the Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice M.S.Karnik held that there is no order or decision on record on the application claiming refund. In this view of the matter, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent to process the application made by the petitioner for refund and pass a reasoned order upon hearing the petitioner. The claim for refund be decided as expeditiously as possible on its own merits and preferably within a period of eight weeks from today. The petitioner to appear before the Competent Authority on October 21, 2021 at 11.00 a.m.
In a significant ruling, a two-judge bench of the Gujarat High Court has directed the GST department to pay 9% interest on the for the default of delayed refund of IGST.
While hearing the petition, Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice A C Rao observed that “the position of law appears to be well settled. The provisions relating to an interest of delayed payment of refund have been consistently held as beneficial and nondiscriminatory. It is true that in the taxing statute the principles of equity may have little role to play, but at the same time, any statute in taxation matter should also meet with the test of constitutional provision.”
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Gujarat High Court where the High Court directed the Goods and Service Tax Authorities to immediately sanction refund towards IGST paid in respect to goods exported made via shipping bills.
The division bench of the High Court while allowing the refunds said that if the refund of the principal amount is not sanctioned and actually paid to the writ applicant within the period of six weeks from the date of the receipt of this order, then interest would start accumulating at the rate of 9% and the amount shall be paid. Upholding the High Court order, Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice M R Shah held that “there is a clear finding of fact which has been recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in its order dated 15 December 2020 that the respondent had claimed an IGST export refund only to the extent of the customs component. We see no error in the finding of the High Court.”
The Bombay High Court directed the GST Authority to issue refund alsong with the interest as Non-Transmission of Data Relating to Export from GSTN to Indian Customs Electronic Gateway ( ICEGATE ) is not a valid ground to withhold refund.
The division bench of Justice Amit B.Borkar and Justice K.R.Shriram held that respondent also had sufficient time to take appropriate decision on the communication from respondent and place the same on record. As no reply has been filed, none of the avernments of the petition has been controversial. The directions of this court also has not been complied with. Moreover, even the communication from respondent indicates that petitioner No.1 is entitled to refund but petitioner is made to run from pillar to post only because data of IGST refund is not transmitted from GSTN to ICEGATE. That cannot be the petitioner’s problem and it was the responsibility of respondents and in particular respondent no.6 to ensure that petitioner got its refund. Unfortunately, it has been more than 41⁄2 years since the amount has not been refunded.
The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) grants of IGST refunds paid on imported goods demanded when there is no intention to take the release of goods.
The coram of Judicial Member Sulekha Beevi C.S. held that the appellant has replied to the Show Cause Notice explaining the entire situation by which he had to file the refund claim and thereafter the application for withdrawing the refund claim. The adjudicating authority however proceeded to impose a penalty of Rs.50 lakhs. The Tribunal believed that the appellant has been put to the hardship of making pre-deposit on such a huge penalty by the wrong appreciation of facts. The tribunal further found that there was nothing brought out in evidence that attracts the ingredients of section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The mere fact that the department had already appropriated the duty amount paid by the appellant towards the imported goods and therefore could not collect further amount against the amended bills of entry presented by the new purchaser cannot be a ground to issue a Show Cause.
The Gujarat Authority of Advance Ruling ( AAR ) ruled in respect of the eligibility for IGST refunds when applicant avails duty exemption but opt to pay IGST on import under Advance Authorization.
The coram consisting of Sanjay Saxena and Mohit Aggarwal ruled that the importers who are directly importing supplies on which benefit of reduced tax incidence or no tax incidence under certain notifications specified under rule 96(10) has been availed, shall not be eligible for refund of integrated tax paid on export.
“We hold that the availing exemption under Notification No.79/2017-Cus dated 13.10.2017 in respect of additional duty of Customs under sub-Section (1), (3) and (5) of Section 3, anti-dumping duty under section 9A, but opting to pay IGST on the import of goods under Advance Authorization, would tantamount to availing the benefits of exemption under Notification No.79/2017-Cus dated 13.10.2017, as contemplated under Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules, 2017. Consequently, the applicant is not eligible to claim refund thereof under Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules, 2017, as amended,” the AAR ruled.
A division bench of the Gujarat High Court comprising Justice A.J.Desai and Justice Bhargav D. Karia has allowed IGST refund along with interest in the light of the recent Supreme Court decision in Mohit Minerals v. Union of India.
Allowing the application, the division bench held that “We have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court upholding the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in group of writ petitions, referred to herein above. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the present application requires consideration and hence, the same is allowed in terms of prayer 6 (a). The respondents are hereby directed to grant refund of the amount of IGST already paid by the applicants pursuant to the Entry No.10 of Notification No.10/2017-IGST ( Rate ) dated 28.6.2017 along with statutory rate of interest on such refund within a period of four weeks from the date of submission of necessary documents by the applicants. Rule is made absolute.”
The Kerala High Court directed the Commissioner Goods and Service Tax to process refund claim in the matter of refund of Integrated Goods and Service Tax ( IGST ) on shipping bills.
A Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that “Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with direction to the 4 th respondent to take into consideration of Exhibits P-5 and P-6 and process the claim of the petitioner for refund of Integrated Goods and Service Tax in respect of the shipping bills in accordance with law.”
“The petitioner may be afforded an opportunity of being heard to substantiate his claim for refund of Integrated Goods and Service Tax for the exports reflected in the shipping bills. The necessary order should be passed within a period of two months” the Bench concluded.
The New Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) quashed the Customs Broker ( CB ) license for facilitating fraudulent exports to avail ineligible Integrated Goods and Service Tax ( IGST ) refund on the ground of violation of regulation 10(n) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations Rules ( CBLR ),2018.
The Bench observed that in the case of Swastic Cargo Agency Limited vs. Commissioner of Custom, the court held that CB failed to verify the correctness of the document thereby violating its obligation as a customs broker even forfeiture of security deposit has rightly been ordered and the suspension of his licence was quite a proportionate penalty. The two-member bench comprising Rachana Gupta ( Judicial ) and Hemambika Priya ( Technical ) held that there was a violation of Regulation 10(n) of CBLR by the assessee and suspension of the Customs Broker license was upheld.
Bombay High Court ( HC ) presided by Justices Abhay Ahuja and Nitin Jamdar directed both GST and Customs department to coordinate and decide about the correct authority to decide the Integrated Goods and Services Tax ( IGST ) refund.
The bench observed that both the departments pointed to each other for the refund process. Further the court disapproved of such stands taken by the officers of the Government leading to needless waste of judicial time and harassment to the citizens. The division bench directed the respondents ( Customs and GST department ) to coordinate with each other, decide about forum and inform the Court on the next date through a joint note as to who is the correct authority to decide the Petitioner’s claim.
In pursuance of section 54(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act ( CGST ) of 2017 and the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act of 2017, the Gujarat High Court (HC), presided over by Justice Sonia Gokhani and Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt, ordered the authorities to refund the claim of Integrated Goods and Services Tax ( IGST ) that is allegedly withheld illegally.
The bench observed te facts that the petitioner purchased the goods from Sayan Greemochem Private Limited who had purchased goods from Prince Chemicals, who is placed in the list of L2 risky supplier and therefore the IGST refund of the petitioner was withheld on the ground of availing of wrong Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) by the petitioner.
However, it was discovered from the record that the petitioner had reversed the ITC of Rs. 11,55,726 along with a fine and interest for the aforementioned purchases. Furthermore, owing to the fact that measures are in place to reclaim taxes if the petitioner’s supplier or the supplier’s supplier fail to pay them or use them incorrectly, neither the CGST Act nor the IGST Act require the petitioner to confirm the legitimacy of the suppliers of the supplier.
In a recent ruling, a Single Bench of Justice Md. Nizamuddin of Calcutta High Court directed the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Authorities to re-adjudicate the claim of refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax ( IGST ) which was rejected on the grounds of limitation.
The bench observed that the Additional Government Pleader was not in a position to deny the aforesaid factual and legal position that the impugned notification has been already declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and that the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of petitioner itself has not been stayed or interfered till date by any higher forum. Further, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the single bench set aside the impugned orders rejecting the petitioner’s application for refund relating to the period July, 2017 to June 18.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition seeking the interim protection to the person accused of fraudulently availing IGST refunds and ITC credits.
The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Sanjeev Narula while addressing the allegation that a tax collection mechanism has been converted into a disbursement mechanism most certainly requires investigation said that there Court has no doubt that the trial court, while considering the bail or remand or cancellation of bail application, ‘will separate the wheat from the chaff” and will ensure that no innocent person against whom baseless allegations have been made is remanded to police/judicial custody. The Court held that it is not inclined to interfere with the investigation at this stage and that too in writ proceedings.
In a major relief to Phoenix Contact India Private Ltd, a two-judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Poonam A. Bamba has held that IGST refund is allowable on zero-rated supplies. Earlier, the department has denied the claim pointing out the correction in two shipping bills and higher duty draw back claim.
The Court further noted that the petitioner had sought amendment of the duty drawback code, which was permitted upon payment of Rs. 4,000/- as fee and penalty in respect of each of the subject shipping bills. This amendment was permitted in October, 2018. “Despite this correction having been permitted, the refund of IGST was not ordered,” the Court said.
The Madras High Court ( HC ) presided by Justice Abdul Quddhosh directed for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law. Further ordered that, after adhering to the principles of natural justice and giving the petitioner a personal hearing, the respondent shall issue final orders within twelve weeks after receiving a copy of this order.
Therefore, it is made obvious that the respondent breached the laws of natural justice prior to delivering the contested order rejecting the petitioner’s plea for a refund. The respondent side had violated natural justice, according to the bench. Quashed as well, and the case must be returned to the respondent for an if further of the merits and compliance with the law, within a time range to be established by this Court.
In a recent judgement, the Bombay High Court has allowed the refund of Integrated Goods and Service Tax ( IGST ) on zero-rated supply along with 7% interest.
Section 54 of the CGST Act provides for a refund of tax, which would entitle the Assessee to claim any refund of tax and interest or any other amount paid by him by making an application before the expiry of two years from the relevant date in such form and manner as may be prescribed. Rule 96 of the CGST Rules, which provides for a refund of integrated tax paid on goods or services exported out of India had become applicable.
The division bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain has directed “the Respondents are directed to refund to the Petitioner the IGST paid by the Petitioner in respect of the goods exported, i.e. zero-rated supply, under shipping bills in question being an amount of Rs. 21,41,451/- with simple interest at 7% per annum with effect from 22nd February 2018.”
The Kerala High Court has allowed a petitioner to rectify the GSTR-3B returns filed for the inadvertent error of classifying Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) as Integrated GST ( IGST ) instead of Central GST and State GST.
Consequently, the High Court disposed of the petition, directing the 3rd respondent ( State Tax Officer ) to treat the representation ( Exhibits P4 and P5 ) as a rectification application and issue necessary orders expeditiously. The court emphasized that the order should be passed within two months, providing an opportunity for the petitioner’s hearing. The High Court’s decision serves as a positive development for Mr. Praveen, as it directs tax authorities to review the rectification application promptly. This case highlights the importance of procedural fairness in tax matters and the legal avenues available to taxpayers for rectification of inadvertent errors in compliance documents.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
Want to explore further? Check out our related book here:
