Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST Update on restriction of refund of IGST paid on exports under Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules

GST Update on restriction of refund of IGST paid on exports under Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules

The provision contained in Rule 96(10) has been matter of discussion since its introduction vide Notification no. 3/2018-Central Tax dated 23.01.2018. The language of the Rule 96(10) as inserted retrospectively vide notification no. 3/2018-Central Tax dated 23.01.2018 is produced for the sake of convenient reference as follows:-

(10) The persons claiming refund of integrated tax paid on exports of goods or services should not have received supplies on which the supplier has availed the benefit of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, notification No. 48/2017-Central Tax dated the 18th October, 2017 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R 1305 (E) dated the 18th October, 2017 or notification No. 40/2017-Central Tax (Rate) 23rd October, 2017 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R 1320 (E) dated the 23rd October, 2017 or notification No. 41/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated the 23rd October, 2017 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R 1321 (E) dated the 23rd October, 2017 or notification No. 78/2017-Customs dated the 13th October, 2017 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R 1272(E) dated the 13th October, 2017 or notification No. 79/2017-Customs dated the 13th October, 2017 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R 1299 (E) dated the 13th October, 2017.”;

The content of various notifications referred in the above mentioned provision is summarised as follows:-
1. Notification no. 40/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 23rd October, 2017:- This notification prescribes CGST rate of 0.05% if goods are supplied by registered supplier to a registered recipeint for export subject to certain conditions.

2. Notification no. 41/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 23rd October, 2017:- This notification prescribes IGST rate of 0.1% if goods are supplied by registered supplier to a registered recipeint for export subject to certain conditions.

3. Notification no. 48/2017-Central Tax dated 18th October, 2017:- This notification notifies supplies to be considered as deemed exports.

4. Notification no. 78/2017-Customs dated 13th October, 2017:- This notification provides exemption to IGST and compensation cess levied on goods imported by EOU.

5. Notification no. 79/2017-Customs dated 13th October, 2017:- This notification amends various notifications issued under advance authorization so as to provide IGST exemption and Compensation Cess exemption to goods imported against advance authorization.
We submit that as per the above referred Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017, the refund of IGST paid on exported goods is not allowed if the goods are procured from supplier who has availed benefit of above cited notifications. For example, refund of IGST paid on exported goods is not allowed if goods are procured against an advance license invalidated in favour of local supplier because the Rule refers that the ‘supplier should not have availed the benefit of the mentioned notifications’.

We submit that if an advance license or EPCG license is invalidated in favour of a local supplier and subsequently the supplier supplies goods against such license, the person receiving such goods will become ineligible to claim refund of IGST paid on goods exported. Similarly if the goods are procured by an EOU from local supplier where the local supplier avails the benefit on supply made to EOU, refund will be denied to EOU of IGST paid on exports.

On interpreting the language of the provision, it is clear that the restriction as regards refund of IGST paid on exports is applicable only when person supplying the goods to exporter avails benefit of cited notifications. It is not applicable when advance authorisation holder himself exports the goods.
However, recently, the Notification No. 39/2018-Central Tax dated 04.09.2018 has amended this Rule 96 (10) and the amended Rule reads as follows:-
The persons claiming refund of integrated tax paid on exports of goods or services should not have –

(a) received supplies on which the benefit of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance notification No. 48/2017-Central Tax, dated the 18th October, 2017 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i),vide number G.S.R 1305 (E), dated the 18th October, 2017 or notification No. 40/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated the 23rd October, 2017 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i),vide number G.S.R 1320 (E), dated the 23rd October, 2017 or notification No. 41/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate), dated the 23rd October, 2017 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R 1321 (E), dated the 23rd October, 2017 has been availed; or

(b) availed the benefit under notification No. 78/2017-Customs, dated the 13th October, 2017 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R 1272(E), dated the 13th October, 2017 or notification No. 79/2017-Customs, dated the 13th October, 2017 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i),vide number G.S.R 1299 (E), dated the 13th October, 2017.

The language of the amended provision clearly debars all the exporters including holder of advance authorisations from availing the benefit of refund of IGST paid on the export of goods. Not only this, Circular No. 59/33/2018-GST dated 04.09.2018 clarifies in paragraph no. 5 that restriction under Rule 96(10) applies only to those purchasers/importers who are directly purchasing/importing supplies on which benefit of certain notifications as specified in the sub-rule has been availed. The amendment in the provision contained in Rule 96(10) leaves no scope for the holder of advance authorisation to claim the refund of IGST paid on export of goods/services.

It is pertinent to mention here that the intention of the government to debar the benefit of refund of IGST to exporters availing the benefit of specified notifications was revealed in the clarification issued in paragraph 7 of the Circular No. 45/19/2018-GST dated 30.05.2018 wherein the scope of restriction imposed vide Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules was discussed. It was stated that a manufacturer might have imported capital goods by availing the benefit of notification no. 78/2017-Customs dated 13.10.2017 or notification no. 79/2017-Customs dated 13.10.2017 and thereafter goods manufactured from such capital goods may be supplied to an exporter. It was clarified that restriction does not applies to such inward supplies of exporter. In our opinion, the restriction as regards refund of IGST paid on exports to exporter importing capital goods under specified notification is absurd as in case of EPCG, the export obligation is required to be discharged in 6 years and debarring exporter to claim refund of IGST paid on export of goods merely because IGST exemption was availed on import of capital goods is totally absurd.

In our opinion, the impact of this amendment is far reaching as the exporters holding advance authorisations and who have already claimed refund of IGST paid on exports will face the rigours of recovery of refunds as the amendment is applicable retrospectively w.e.f. 23.10.2017.

The content of this GST update is for educational purpose only and not intended for solicitation.

You can reach us at www.capradeepjain.com, at our facebook page on https://www.facebook.com/GSTTODAYBYPRADEEPJAIN/ as well as follow us on twitter at https://www.twitter.com/@capradeepjain21

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com