Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

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