TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 1097X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fund claim arises and relevant provision of Section 54, Explanation 2, clause (e); relevant date means - (e) in the case of unutilized input tax credit under sub-section (3) the end of the financial year in which such claim for refund arises - Hence the last date for filing of refund application for Zero-Rated Supplies made without payment of Tax under Section 54(3)(i) read with explanation (2) clause (e) for the F.Y. 2017-2018 as an entire period was 31st March, 2020 which was extended due to COVID-19 to 30th June, vide Notification No. 35/2020, dated 3rd April, 2020 and further was extended to 31st August, 2020 by Notification No. 55/2020, dated 27th June, 2020. As per provision of clause (a) of Explanation 2(2) of sub-section (14) of Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017 in the case of goods exported out of India where a refund of tax paid is available in respect of goods themselves or, as the case may be, the inputs or input services used in such goods - the relevant date shall be calculated as per (i), (ii) and (iii) of clause (a). Whereas, the appellant quoted the unamended clause (e) of explanation (2) of sub-section (14 ) of Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 which is applicable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order-in-Original No. date (Impugned order) Period of dispute Order rejecting refund 1 2 3 4 5 1 APPL/ JPR/ CGST/ JP/150/ XII/ 2020 No. ZT0808200288208, dated 20-8-2020 Appellant has filed refund claim under Section 54(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 for the period 1-7-2017 to 31-3-2018 (F.Y. 2017-2018) in respect of accumulated ITC on exported goods. Refund rejection Amounting to ₹ 6,61,135/- 2. Brief facts of the case : 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the appellant having GSTIN 08AFCPG2112A1ZG has filed the application for refund vide GST-RFD-01 with ARN No. AA08087200729606, dated 30-6-2020 and further on 29-7-2020 under Section 54(1) read with Rule 89 of the CGST Act/Rules, 2017 for the period and amount mentioned in Para-1 above in column Nos. 4 5. 2.2 The adjudicating authority has issued show cause notice in Form GST RFD-08 vide reference No. ZW0808200039397, dated 4-8-2020 with reason Delay in Refund Application and given remark : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund arises Section 54 (3) : Subject to the provisions of sub-section (10), a registered person may claim refund of any unutilised input tax credit at the end of any tax period : Provided that no refund of unutilised input tax credit shall be allowed in cases other than - (i) zero-rated supplies made without payment of tax; Hence, the last date for filing of refund application for ZERO-RATED SUPPLIES MADE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF TAX under Section 54(3)(i) read with Explanation (2) clause (e) for the F.Y. 2017-2018 as an entire period was 31st March, 2020 which was extended due to COVID-19 to 30th June, 2020 vide Notification No. 35/2020, dated 3rd April, 2020 and was further extended to 31st August, 2020 by Notification No. 55/2020, dated 27th June, 2020. Hence in view of the aforesaid notifications, the refund applications filed on 30-6-2020 and further 27-7-2020, are well within time and not time-barred considering the fact that the refund applications were filed considering the F.Y. 2017-18 as an entire period. The appellant has mentioned/enclosed copy of Circular No. 135/05/2020, dated 31st March, 2020. Further, the appellant has also submitted additi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accordingly, I proceeded to decide the case envisioning the facts submitted by the appellant as well as put forth in the impugned order. 7. On going through the impugned Order-in-Original passed by the Adjudicating Authority, I find that the Adjudicating Authority has rejected the refund claim of the appellant mainly on the ground that The claimant s argument that as per Clause (e) of Explanation 2 of Section 54 of the CGST, 2017 claim is not time- barred is not tenable as this is not applicable in this case. The claim is time-barred, hence rejected. 8. In this regard, I find that the appellant has contended that refund is not time-barred under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 and stated that relevant date in case of refund of ITC on Export of Goods Services without payment of Tax is the end of the financial year in which the refund claim arises and relevant provision of Section 54, Explanation 2, clause (e); relevant date means - (e) in the case of unutilized input tax credit under sub-section (3) the end of the financial year in which such claim for refund arises . Further, the appellant stated that as per Section 54(3) subject to the provisions of sub-section (1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may claim such refund in the return furnished under section 39 in such manner as may be prescribed. As per Section 54(14)(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. relevant date means - (2) relevant date means - (a) in the case of goods exported out of India where a refund of tax paid is available in respect of goods themselves or, as the case may be, the inputs or input services used in such goods, - (i) if the goods are exported by sea or air, the date on which the ship or the aircraft in which such goods are loaded, leaves India; or Also, the Rule 89(4B) of the CGST Rules, 2017 provides that - xx xx xx CHAPTER X REFUND As per rule 89 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Application for refund of tax, interest, penalty, fees or any other amount. (1) Any person, except the persons covered under notification issued under section 55, claiming refund of any tax, interest, penalty, fees or any other amount paid by him, other than refund of integrated tax paid on goods exported out of India, may file an application electronically in FORM GST RFD-01* through the common portal, either directly or through a Facilitation Centre notified by the Commissioner : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant argument that as per clause (e) of the Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017, claim is not time-barred is not tenable as this is not applicable in this case. In the instant case for relevant date Section 54 of CGST Act Explanation (2), clause (a) is applicable. In this context, I find that the contention of revenue is legally correct and justified. As per provision of clause (a) of Explanation 2(2) of sub-section (14) of Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017 in the case of goods exported out of India where a refund of tax paid is available in respect of goods themselves or, as the case may be, the inputs or input services used in such goods - the relevant date shall be calculated as per (i), (ii) and (iii) of clause (a). Whereas, the appellant quoted the unamended clause (e) of explanation (2) of sub-section (14 ) of Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 which is applicable only in the case of refund of unutilized input tax credit in respect of inverted duty structure as per clause (ii) of the first proviso to sub-section (3), of Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017. In view of the said legal provisions as mentioned above, I do not accede the appellant contention. In respect of issue mentioned at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
