2020 (1) TMI 1293 - Commissioner - GST

Appeal for GST refund on export dismissed due to non-compliance with regulations and improper documentation

M/s. Shri Kalyan Exports, Versus The Deputy Commissioner CGST Division-B, Jaipur

The appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, seeking a refund of unutilized ITC on export, was dismissed. The appellate authority upheld the rejection of ... Refund of unutilized ITC - export of goods and services without payment of Integrated Tax - rejection on the ground that the appellant carried out business activity from an undeclared place of business and issued improper tax invoices showing undeclared address - HELD THAT:- The appellant has made supplies from the undeclared place and thus invoice issued with such address cannot be treated as legal and proper tax invoice. In the absence of proper tax invoices, the refund is not admissible to the appellant under Rule 89 of CGST rules, 2017. The appellant had made application for addition of aforementioned undeclared place of business only after the adjudicating authority issued SCN post verification of facts which shows that the appellant concealed the activity from the department and carried out the business activity from the undeclared place of business. The order passed by adjudicating authority is upheld - appeal dismissed. Issues:Refund claim rejection based on business activity from an undeclared place of business and improper tax invoices.Analysis:The appeal was filed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 against an Order in Original passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The appellant, a registered entity, sought a refund of unutilized ITC on export of goods and services without payment of Integrated Tax. The adjudicating authority raised concerns regarding an undeclared place of business, leading to a Show Cause Notice for rejection of the refund claim.The appellant responded, stating ownership of both declared and undeclared business places, attributing the omission to portal errors. However, the adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim based on the business activity from the undeclared place. The appellant, aggrieved by this decision, filed an appeal.Despite granting multiple personal hearings, the appellant did not attend or request further hearings. Upon review, the appellate authority upheld the rejection, citing non-compliance with GST Act definitions of place of business and principal place of business. The authority emphasized the necessity of proper tax invoices under CGST Rules, highlighting the appellant's failure to issue legal invoices from the undeclared place.The appellate authority concluded that the appellant's actions constituted concealment from the department, leading to the rejection of the refund claim. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the adjudicating authority's decision. The judgment underscores the importance of compliance with GST regulations and the implications of improper documentation on refund claims.This detailed analysis encapsulates the legal nuances and procedural aspects of the judgment, emphasizing the significance of adherence to statutory provisions in GST matters.