Export refund claim rejected for filing seven days beyond two-year statutory deadline under Section 54(1)

The Commissioner (Appeals) CGST, Jaipur dismissed the appellant's refund claim for input tax credit on exported goods. The appellant filed refund applications on 27-8-2020 for exports from April-August 2018, but the Export Goods Manifest showed goods left India by 31-8-2018. Under Section 54(1) CGST Act 2017 and relevant notifications, refund applications must be filed within two years from the relevant date, requiring filing by 31-8-2020. Since fresh applications were filed on 8-9-2020 after deficiency memo, they exceeded the statutory time limit. The adjudicating authority correctly rejected the claims as time-barred.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the refund claims of inputs used in exported goods filed by the appellant are time-barred.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the refund claims of inputs used in exported goods filed by the appellant are time-barred:

The appellant, M/s. Campus Pharma Private Limited, filed five appeals under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 against the Orders-in-Original passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax Division-I, Jaipur. The appellant sought refunds for the periods April 2018 to August 2018 under Section 54(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, for inputs used in exported goods.

Facts of the Case:
- The appellant initially filed applications for refunds on 27th August 2020.
- The adjudicating authority issued deficiency memos on 2nd September 2020, citing missing statements and supporting documents.
- The appellant then refiled the applications on 8th September 2020.
- The adjudicating authority rejected the applications on 30th September 2020, stating they were time-barred as per Section 54(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, read with Notification No. 35/2020-C.T., dated 3-4-2020, and Notification No. 55/2020-C.T., dated 27-6-2020.

Appellant's Arguments:
- The appellant argued that the initial applications were filed within the extended deadline of 31st August 2020.
- They contended that the fresh applications were merely in compliance with the deficiency memo and should be considered as a continuation of the original applications.
- The appellant cited Rule 90(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017, which allows for the rectification of deficiencies and resubmission of applications.
- They referenced various case laws to support their argument that the initial filing date should be considered for the two-year period.

Legal Provisions and Analysis:
- Section 54(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, stipulates that refund applications must be made before the expiry of two years from the relevant date.
- Section 54(14)(2)(a)(i) defines the "relevant date" as the date on which the ship or aircraft carrying the exported goods leaves India.
- Rule 89(4B) of the CGST Rules, 2017, and Rule 90(3) require that deficiencies in refund applications be communicated, and fresh applications be filed after rectification.
- Notification No. 55/2020-C.T., dated 27-6-2020, extended the deadline for compliance falling between 20-3-2020 to 30-8-2020 to 31-8-2020.

Findings:
- The adjudicating authority issued deficiency memos on 2-9-2020, and the appellant refiled the applications on 8-9-2020.
- The relevant date for the refund applications was on or before 31-8-2018, meaning the applications should have been filed by 31-8-2020.
- The fresh applications filed on 8-9-2020 were beyond the two-year period from the relevant date.

Conclusion:
The adjudicating authority correctly rejected the refund claims as time-barred. The appellant's contention that the initial filing date should be considered was against the provisions of Rule 90(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017. Therefore, all five appeals filed by the appellant were rejected.

---