EOU refund petition dismissed for lack of documentary evidence supporting zero rated supply claims

The Jharkhand HC dismissed a petition by a 100% EOU seeking refund of accumulated CGST, SGST and IGST credit for zero rated supplies. The petitioner claimed denial of personal hearing and violation of natural justice principles by the adjudicating authority. However, the HC found that despite being afforded personal hearing opportunities before both adjudicating and appellate authorities, the petitioner failed to produce documentary evidence supporting their zero rated supply claims. The court held that mere averments without corroborative documentary evidence are insufficient to substantiate refund claims, resulting in dismissal of the application.

---

---

Issues:
1. Refusal of refund of accumulated CGST, SGST, and IGST credit.
2. Allegation of rejection of refund claim without considering petitioner's explanation and documents.
3. Discrepancy in zero rated supplies mentioned in GSTR 3B and GSTR 1 returns.
4. Failure to provide documentary evidence to support refund claim.
5. Compliance with principles of natural justice in the adjudication process.

Issue 1: Refusal of refund of accumulated CGST, SGST, and IGST credit:
The petitioner, an export-oriented unit, sought a refund of Rs.9,89,191.00 for the period of January 2018. The respondent rejected the refund claim citing discrepancies in the calculation based on zero rated supplies. The petitioner contended that the rejection was erroneous as it fell under exempt supplies as per the CGST Act. The respondent justified the rejection based on the formula calculation, where zero rated supplies in GSTR 3B for January 2018 were deemed zero, leading to a zero refund amount.

Issue 2: Allegation of rejection of refund claim without considering petitioner's explanation and documents:
The petitioner argued that the respondent failed to consider the provided documents and explanations, resulting in an unjustified rejection. The respondent countered, stating that a personal hearing was granted, and the rejection was based on Section 17(5) of the CGST Act. The petitioner's detailed reply was considered during adjudication, but the claim was ultimately rejected without adequate consideration.

Issue 3: Discrepancy in zero rated supplies mentioned in GSTR 3B and GSTR 1 returns:
A discrepancy arose where zero rated supplies were incorrectly mentioned as zero in the GSTR 3B return for January 2018, despite being correctly reported in the GSTR 1 return against export invoices. This discrepancy led to a dispute regarding the actual value of zero rated supplies and subsequently impacted the refund claim calculation.

Issue 4: Failure to provide documentary evidence to support refund claim:
The petitioner failed to provide documentary evidence to substantiate the claim for refund, both before the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority. The absence of supporting documents, especially related to zero rated supplies, hindered the validation of the refund claim. The law mandates the submission of documentary evidence to corroborate refund claims, which the petitioner failed to provide, leading to the rejection of the claim.

Issue 5: Compliance with principles of natural justice in the adjudication process:
The respondent contended that the petitioner was afforded a personal hearing during the assessment proceedings, as required by natural justice principles. Despite the opportunity, the petitioner did not provide sufficient documentary evidence to support the claim. The court found that the petitioner's argument of lack of natural justice grounds was unfounded, as a fair opportunity was provided during the adjudication process.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ application, citing the petitioner's failure to substantiate the refund claim with necessary documentary evidence and the adherence to natural justice principles during the adjudication process.

---