Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

☞ Data-bank

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Articles News D. Forum
What's New  Latest Cases 


Discussions Forum
Home Forum Goods and Services Tax - GST This
A Public Forum.
Anyone can participate to share knowledge.
We acknowledge the contributions of Experts/ Authors.

Submit new Issue / Query

← Previous Next →

Refund rejected for claim under 89(4) since few exports under advance authorisation, Goods and Services Tax - GST

Issue Id: - 117752
Dated: 8-1-2022
Refund rejected for claim under 89(4) since few exports under advance authorisation

  • Contents

We are into the cashew manufacturing industry. We do export as well as local sales. In our export there will be export with advance authorisation and in some cases export against DFIA.

We were filing refund applications under 89(4) (Export without payment of duty) till february 2021 in Central GST jurisdiction and we got the refund. We filed a refund application under the same rule for March 2021. A Jurisdictional officer issued SCN asking why refund can't be rejected since few exports under AA (expecting application has to be filed under rule 89(4B) since export includes Advance Authorisation)..

We would like to bring into your notice that Rule 89(4B) is incomplete for beneficiaries of notification 79/2017. Master circular 125/44/2019 is silent about the manner of computation of refund under rule 89(4B).

We have local sales (neither 89(4) nor 89(4b) applicable)as well (we are not 100% EOU). Hence the input tax credits cant be practically segregated based on utilization (say its difficult to identify which input service or inputs used for exports (either DFIA export or AA exports) or local sales.

Formula given in the rule 89(4) is proper from all respects and the whole manner of application under rule 89(4) is explained properly under 125/44/2019. Whereas 89(4B) even though the beneficiary amendment, is read and understood in a narrow mind set. Such interpretation will cause unnecessary delay in refund sanction and working capital block .

Department is expecting the nexus of input and input services used in export.

Need expert advice on the issue.

Post Reply

Posts / Replies

Showing Replies 1 to 5 of 5 Records

1 Dated: 8-1-2022
By:- Shilpi Jain

Refund should be available as per formula in the rule and no nexus is required to be shown between inputs and output

2 Dated: 9-1-2022

Hello Ma'am, Thanks for the reply. saying in case of export against advance authorisation ,refund application should be under 89(4b). In 89(4) formula is prescribed. But in 89(4b) no formula is prescribed.

3 Dated: 9-1-2022

Dear Querist,

The department is absolutely right. You are to prove the consumption of inputs and input services in the exported goods. CMA's certificate regarding the usage would suffice.

Emphasis is laid on the words, 'To the extent used in the export of goods' in Rule 89 (4B).

4 Dated: 10-1-2022

Kasthuri sir,

We have export against DFIA, Export against advance authorization and local sales as well. Goods imported will be exported in another month. So it is difficult to establish the nexus in manufacturing sector. There are common input and input services which will be used commanly for all exports as well as local sales. Moreover there are no circulars or instructions from department side to apply for the refund in this circumstances.

5 Dated: 13-1-2022
By:- Shilpi Jain

Identifying one to one inputs or services to the export is impossible in many ages which is why it is objectively to be identified Vicente formula provided.


Post Reply

← Previous Next →

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Site Map - Recent || Site Map || ||