Export refund claim rejected due to retrospective application of amended CGST Rules 86 and 92

The Commissioner (Appeals) CGST, Jaipur dismissed the appeal regarding refund of excess tax payment on export of goods. The appellant filed the appeal 26 days late, citing COVID-19 office closure, which was condoned as delay was within 30 days. However, the refund claim for January 2020 was rejected because the amended Rule 86(4)(A) and Rule 92(1)(1A) of CGST Rules, 2017 became effective from March 31, 2020, and could not be applied retrospectively to the January 2020 period in question.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Timeliness of the appeal filing.
2. Admissibility of the refund claim for IGST paid on export of goods.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Timeliness of the Appeal Filing:

The first issue addressed was whether the appeal was filed within the prescribed time limit. According to Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, an appeal must be filed within three months from the date of the decision or order being communicated. The appellant filed the appeal on 23-11-2020, which was a delay of 26 days beyond the standard three-month period. The appellant cited COVID-19 related disruptions and technical difficulties with the GST portal as reasons for the delay. Given that delays up to 30 days are condonable under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, the delay was condoned, and the case proceeded on its merits.

2. Admissibility of the Refund Claim for IGST Paid on Export of Goods:

The appellant filed a refund application under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 for IGST paid on the export of goods for January 2020. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim, stating it could not be sanctioned in cash according to Rule 86 of the CGST Rules, 2017 and Circular No. 135/05/2020. The appellant argued that the adjudicating authority misinterpreted Rule 86, which pertains to the Electronic Credit Ledger, and that Rule 92, which governs refund sanctions, should apply. They highlighted amendments made to Rule 92 via the CGST (Third Amendment) Rules, 2020, effective from 23-3-2020, which introduced sub-rule (1A) specifying the refund process.

The appellant stressed that under the amended Rule 92(1A), refunds for excess tax paid should be recredited to the Electronic Credit Ledger if the tax was originally paid by debiting this ledger. However, the adjudicating authority noted that these amendments were effective from 31-3-2020, while the refund period in question was January 2020. Consequently, the amendments could not be applied retrospectively.

The appellant's refund application was based on an incorrect entry in GSTR-3B for January 2020, which was later corrected in March 2020. Despite the appellant's arguments and reliance on the amended rules and Circular No. 135/05/2020, the adjudicating authority maintained that the refund/recredit could not be granted as the amendments were not applicable to the period in question.

Conclusion:

The appeal was rejected on the grounds that the amendments to Rule 86 and Rule 92 of the CGST Rules, 2017, which the appellant relied upon, were not applicable retrospectively to the period of January 2020. The adjudicating authority's interpretation that the refund claim could not be sanctioned in cash was upheld, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.

---