TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 404X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected the petitioner s applications for refund only on the ground that there is contravention of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017. It remains indisputable that the petitioner, upon realizing that it could not have claimed refund under Section 16(3)(b) of the IGST Act, 2017 and after repatriating refund permitted in a sum of Rs.40,31,13,682/- along with interest, has filed applications under Section 16 of the IGST Act, 2017. The provisions of Section 16(3)(a) of the IGST Act as it stood at the relevant time enabled a registered person making a Zero-Rated Supply, as in the case of the petitioner, eligible to claim refund without payment of integrated tax subject to conditions mentioned therein. The third respondent should have considered the indisputable fact of refund, later repatriation of refund and filing of separate applications for refund later under section 16(3)(a) of the IGST Act. On this limited ground the impugned orders as per Annexure-K series cannot be sustained and the petitioner must succeed on this score lest it be an impediment for the proper officer - - the Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax, North West Division, Bengaluru West Commissionerate Bengaluru - t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in its Electronic Credit Ledger while also claiming interest in a sum of Rs.2,35,72,225/-. 2. The petitioner contends that it has affected exports until 29.04.2021 availing benefit under the Advanced Authorization Scheme without payment of integrated tax with accumulated and unutilized ITC of RS.49,99,50,702/-. However, thereafter the petitioner, on advice, chose the option of exporting with payment of integrated tax so that it could exhaust the accumulated and unutilized ITC, and because of this change, the petitioner, instead of filing application for refund of accumulated and unutilized ITC, claimed set off. The value of the petitioner s exports for the period between April 2021 and September 2021 is in a sum of RS.10,48,29,08,881/- with IGST liability of Rs.52,44,57,242/-, and because of accumulated and unutilized ITC [68,96,95,071], the petitioner was entitled to receive refund of Rs.52,44,57,242/-. 3. In the month of September 2021, the petitioner is allowed refund of only Rs.40,31,13,682/- and the petitioner s claim for refund Rs.12,13,43,560/- [Rs.52,44,57,242/- minus Rs.40,31,13,682/-] is blocked under Rule 96 (3) of the CGST Rules 2017. It is undisputed that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 16(3) of the IGST Act as it stood at the relevant time, the assessee had the option of making an application for refund of unutilized ITC based on a Letter of Undertaking filed at the time of export 2 or pay IGST and claim refund of such amount 3 . The petitioner, in exhausting the accumulated and unutilized ITC to his credit in a sum of Rs.52,44,57,242/-, has paid integrated tax and has made a request for refund by way of a deemed application which would be under Section 16(3)(b) of the IGST Act. However, in view of the provisions of Rule 96(10)(b) of the IGST Rules, the petitioner could not have had recourse to the option under Section 16(3)(b) of the IGST Act, and upon realizing the same during the course of hearing extended as part of investigation, the petitioner has repatriated the amount received as refund with interest. Consequentially, the petitioner has filed applications for refund which must be considered under Section 16(3)(a) of the IGST Act as it stood then read with Section 54 of the CGST Act. 8. As regards the petitioner s claim for restoring ITC credit, Sri Harish V.S submits that if it could have been argued that as of the date of the petition th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted in a sum of Rs.40,31,13,682/- along with interest, has filed applications under Section 16 of the IGST Act, 2017. The provisions of Section 16(3)(a) of the IGST Act as it stood at the relevant time enabled a registered person making a Zero-Rated Supply, as in the case of the petitioner, eligible to claim refund without payment of integrated tax subject to conditions mentioned therein. The third respondent should have considered the indisputable fact of refund, later repatriation of refund and filing of separate applications for refund later under section 16(3)(a) of the IGST Act. 13. Therefore, on this limited ground the impugned orders as per Annexure-K series cannot be sustained and the petitioner must succeed on this score lest it be an impediment for the proper officer - - the Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax, North West Division, Bengaluru West Commissionerate Bengaluru - to reconsider the petitioner s request for re-credit in accordance with law and in the light of the fact that the petitioner has repatriated the amount that is credited to him along with interest and that there is a direction by this Court as part of this order to consider recrediting a sum of Rs.5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
