Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the refund claim for unutilised input tax credit was admissible to the SEZ unit exporting goods without payment of integrated tax, or whether the refund was confined to suppliers making supplies to SEZ units/developers with payment of tax.
Analysis: Section 54(3) permits refund of unutilised input tax credit only in specified cases, including zero-rated supplies made without payment of tax. However, the refund mechanism under Rule 89(1) for supplies to a Special Economic Zone unit or developer places the refund claim on the supplier, and Rule 89(2)(f) requires a declaration that tax has not been collected from the SEZ unit or developer in such supplier-side refund claims. Reading Section 54(3), Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and Rule 89 together, the refund scheme was held to distinguish between refunds claimable by suppliers to SEZ and the claim advanced by the SEZ unit itself. The appellate authority found that the appellant, being the SEZ unit, could not claim refund on the basis urged.
Conclusion: The refund claim by the SEZ unit was held not maintainable, and the rejection of refund was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: Under the refund framework for zero-rated supplies and SEZ transactions, refund of unutilised input tax credit for supplies to an SEZ unit is claimable by the supplier in the manner prescribed, and not by the SEZ unit on the same basis.