Refund of Input Tax Credit Application Rejected; Drop-Shipping Not Export Sales

The application for an advance ruling regarding the refund of Input Tax Credit (ITC) based on hard copies of shipping bills not traceable on the ICEGATE website was rejected as non-maintainable, as the query was deemed technical/procedural and outside the scope of matters specified in Section 97(2) of the CGST Act. Additionally, the determination that drop-shipping transactions do not constitute export sales subject to IGST was upheld, as the applicant's role as an intermediary did not involve direct sales of goods. The application was rejected under Section 95 of the CGST Act due to the absence of a supply of goods by the applicant.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Claim for refund of Input Tax Credit (ITC) based on hard copies of shipping bills not traceable on ICEGATE website.
2. Determination of whether drop-shipping transactions constitute export sales subject to IGST.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Claim for refund of ITC based on hard copies of shipping bills not traceable on ICEGATE website.
The applicant sought an advance ruling on whether hard copies of shipping bills, despite being unable to track them on ICEGATE website, are sufficient for claiming a refund of ITC for export sales. The Authority clarified that it can only rule on matters specified in Section 97(2) of the CGST Act, which includes classification of goods, applicability of notifications, time and value of supply, admissibility of ITC, liability to pay tax, registration requirements, and determination of supply. The Authority found the query to be technical/procedural and not falling under the categories listed in Section 97(2), making it non-maintainable for a ruling.

Issue 2: Determination of whether drop-shipping transactions constitute export sales subject to IGST.
Regarding the second issue, the Authority examined the nature of drop-shipping transactions where goods are delivered directly from the manufacturer to the buyer without passing through the applicant's premises. It was observed that the applicant acts as an intermediary, facilitating the transaction between the buyer and the seller without owning or delivering the goods. As there is no direct sale of goods by the applicant, the Authority concluded that such transactions do not qualify as export sales subject to IGST. Since there is no supply of goods by the applicant, the application was deemed non-maintainable under Section 95 of the CGST Act, leading to its rejection.

In the final order, the Authority rejected the application for advance ruling as non-maintainable under the provisions of the law. The judgment emphasized the technical limitations of the Authority's jurisdiction in ruling on matters beyond the scope defined in the relevant sections of the CGST Act.

---