Refund claim partially allowed on appeal; time-barred period rejected. Recalculated balance refund sanctioned.

The appeal was partially allowed. The refund claim for the period 02.11.2018 to 19.11.2018 was rejected as time-barred, while the rest of the claim was considered for sanction. The admissible balance refund amount was recalculated and sanctioned accordingly.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Communication and validity of the deficiency memo.
2. Time-barred status of the refund claim under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Communication and Validity of the Deficiency Memo

Contention by Appellant:
The appellant argued that the deficiency memo issued on 12.11.2020 was not communicated via the GSTN portal, email, or physical hard copy. They asserted compliance with all statutory provisions and claimed that all necessary documents were submitted with the original application filed on 02.11.2020. The appellant also contended that the deficiency memo was issued without specifying the incompleteness in the documents, which they deemed unfair and unlawful.

Findings:
The adjudicating authority clarified that as per Rule 90(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017, the deficiency memo should be communicated through the common portal electronically. The appellant was aware of the deficiency memo, as evidenced by emails sent to the department on 18th November 2020, acknowledging the issuance of the memo. The authority found that the original refund application lacked all relevant documents as required under Section 54(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, and Rule 89(2) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The deficiency memo was issued within the prescribed 15-day period, and the proper officer acted in accordance with the law.

Conclusion:
The deficiency memo was validly issued and communicated through the common portal. The original refund application was incomplete, justifying the issuance of the deficiency memo.

Issue 2: Time-Barred Status of the Refund Claim

Contention by Appellant:
The appellant argued that the relevant date for calculating the two-year limitation period should be the date when the goods passed the frontier of India, not the date of the export invoice. They provided details of shipping bills, invoices, and EGM dates to support their claim. The appellant also contended that the date of the first application (02.11.2020) should be considered for limitation purposes, not the date of the fresh application (19.11.2020) filed after the deficiency memo.

Findings:
The adjudicating authority noted that the relevant date for calculating the limitation period is the date on which the goods leave India, as per Section 54, Explanation 2(a)(ii) of the CGST Act, 2017. The date of filing the fresh refund application (19.11.2020) was correctly considered, as the initial application was incomplete. The refund claim for the period 02.11.2018 to 19.11.2018 was found to be time-barred, while the rest of the claim was within the limitation period. The authority recalculated the admissible refund amount based on the FOB value of the shipping bills.

Conclusion:
The relevant date for the refund claim is the date when the goods leave India, and the fresh application date (19.11.2020) was correctly used for calculating the limitation period. The refund claim for the period 02.11.2018 to 19.11.2018 is time-barred, while the rest of the claim is admissible.

Final Judgment:
The appeal was partially allowed. The refund claim for the period 02.11.2018 to 19.11.2018 was rejected as time-barred, while the rest of the claim was considered for sanction. The admissible balance refund amount was recalculated and sanctioned accordingly.

---