2021 (1) TMI 582 - Commissioner - GST

Challenged refund denial due to errors in zero-rated supplies filing, but failed to rectify as per Circular.

The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim for supplies made to a SEZ unit/SEZ Developer due to discrepancies in invoices and filing ... Refund of GST - supplies to SEZ Unit/SEZ Developer were made during the period July-2017 & August-2017 - Refund rejected on the ground that the appellant submitted the copies of invoices issued in the month of July-2017 and August-2017 but the ARN generated shows that the refund is claimed for the month of February-2018 - HELD THAT:- The appellant has not shown the value / figure in column 3.1 (a) Outward taxable supply (Zero rated) of GSTR-3B for the relevant month. The 'NIL” amount was shown in column 3.1 (a) Outward taxable supply (Zero rated). The appellant 's contention is that due to typographic mistake it was inadvertently shown in column 3.1 (b) of GSTR-3B in the month of July-2017 instead of column 3.1 (a) Outward taxable supply (Zero rated) of GSTR-3B. Moreover, as per detail of Tax invoices number RIL/PPS-06 and PPS-07 shows Commissioner pertains to the month of June-2017 (pre GST regime) on which Service Tax was to be paid by the appellant. The submission of the appellant that the figures related to SEZ supplies made during the period July-2017 and August-2017 declared correctly in their GSTR-1 filed for July and August-2017 is not found correct and acceptable at this stage. The appellant should have rectified the mistake committed while filing GSTR-3B. Since the appellant has not taken the advantage of aforesaid circular by rectifying their mistake in filing the relevant return, their appeal can not be allowed. Appeal dismissed. Issues:1. Refund claim rejection based on incorrect filing of returns and invoices.2. Discrepancies in showing zero-rated supplies in GSTR-3B.3. Typographic errors in filing returns and claiming refunds.4. Appellant's contention on rectification of errors in GST returns.5. Rejection of refund claim due to failure to rectify mistakes in filing returns.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed against the Order in Original rejecting a refund claim of Rs. 2,12,814 for supplies made to SEZ unit/SEZ Developer in February 2018. The claim was rejected due to discrepancies in the invoices submitted and the period mentioned for the refund claim.2. The appellant submitted invoices from July and August 2017 for zero-rated supplies but incorrectly showed them in GSTR-3B as 'NIL.' However, in February 2018, correct details were provided in GSTR-3B, indicating taxable value and IGST for zero-rated supplies.3. Typographic errors were acknowledged by the appellant, stating that SEZ supplies were mistakenly shown in the wrong column of GSTR-3B for July and August 2017. The appellant emphasized their genuine intent and lack of provision for revising returns in the GST regime.4. The Circular No.26/26/2017-GST provided opportunities for rectification of errors in GSTR-3B while filing GSTR-1 and GSTR-2 of the same month, which the appellant failed to utilize. Additionally, tax invoices indicated commission amounts from the pre-GST era, requiring Service Tax payment instead of claiming IGST refund.5. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal, noting the appellant's failure to rectify mistakes in GSTR-3B despite provisions for corrections. The rejection of the refund claim was upheld based on the legal provisions and the appellant's non-compliance with rectification opportunities.This detailed analysis highlights the key issues surrounding the rejection of the refund claim, discrepancies in filing returns, typographic errors, and the appellant's failure to rectify mistakes, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.