TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Commissioner Upholds Rejection of IGST Refund Appeal Due to Lack of BRC/FIRC Compliance</h1> <h3>Drive Digital Versus THE DY. COMMISSIONER, CGST DIVISION-B, JAIPUR</h3> Drive Digital Versus THE DY. COMMISSIONER, CGST DIVISION-B, JAIPUR - 2020 (42) G.S.T.L. 518 (Commr. Appl. - GST - Raj.) Issues:1. Refund of IGST for export of service rejected due to non-submission of BRC or FIRC.2. Appellant's grounds for appeal against rejection of refund claim.3. Interpretation of Rule 89(2)(c) of CGST Rules, 2017 regarding submission of FIRC.4. Applicability of Circular No. 37/11/2018-GST on processing refund claims.5. Evaluation of documents submitted by the appellant for refund claim.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim of IGST for export of service due to non-submission of Bank Realization Certificate (BRC) or Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates (FIRC) as required by Rule 89(2)(c) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The adjudicating authority rejected the claim on this basis.2. The appellant presented various grounds for appeal, arguing that the refund claim was admissible as per GST law, and the rejection was unjustified. They contended that the conditions for export of service, including receipt of payment in convertible foreign exchange, were met. Additionally, they cited RBI instructions on FIRC discontinuance and Circular No. 37/11/2018-GST to support their claim.3. The Commissioner analyzed Rule 89(2)(c) of the CGST Rules, 2017, which mandates the submission of a statement with relevant BRC or FIRC for export of services. Referring to Circular No. 37/11/2018-GST, it clarified the documentation requirements for processing refund claims related to exports, emphasizing the significance of FIRC in such cases.4. The Commissioner examined the documents submitted by the appellant, including a Foreign Inward Remittance Statement and an export invoice. However, the statement lacked details linking it to the specific invoice, rendering it inadequate as a valid FIRC. Consequently, the Commissioner upheld the adjudicating authority's decision to reject the refund claim.5. Following a thorough review of the case records and submissions, the Commissioner concluded that the appellant's appeal lacked merit, and the rejection of the refund claim was justified based on non-compliance with the FIRC submission requirement. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision of the adjudicating authority.This detailed analysis of the issues involved in the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the legal reasoning and application of relevant provisions in the context of the refund claim for IGST on export of service.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
