Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2023 (4) TMI 406

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fund Rejection Order) was rejected. 2. The petitioner had filed an application dated 29.05.2020 seeking refund of and amount of Rs. 3,99,187/- being the integrated tax paid on the export of services (zero rated supply) in respect of the invoices raised in the month of October 2018. The petitioner had received the Foreign Inward Remittance against the said invoices in November, 2018. 3. The Adjudicating Authority issued a Deficiency Memo calling upon the petitioner to furnish the Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate. 4. The petitioner complied with the same. 5. Thereafter, the Adjudicating Authority issued a Show Cause Notice setting out certain queries with regard to the difference in the payment of tax, and as reflected in 'An....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 9. The relevant extract of the impugned order is set out below: "11.1 Consideration of reply in para 2.1 xxxx xxxx xxxx b) Now as per Rule 96(9) read with Sub-Clause (D) of Rule 89(4) of CGST Rule 2017, the Zero-rated supply of services is the aggregate of the payments received during the relevant period for zero-rated supply of services, whereas in the instant case the payments received is either in the month of November 2018 or June 2020 (as stated in 11.1(a)) , both of which is not the refund claimed period (i.e. October 2018). c) Therefore there is no export of services done during the relevant refund claimed period i.e. in October 2018 as per Rule 96(9) read with Sub-Clause (D) of Rule 89(4) of CG....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Where,- (A) "Refund amount" means the maximum refund that is admissible; (B) "Net ITC" means input tax credit availed on inputs and input services during the relevant period other than the input tax credit availed for which refund is claimed under sub-rules (4A) or (4B) or both; (C) Turnover of zero-rated supply of goods" means the value of zerorated supply of goods made during the relevant period without payment of tax under bond or letter of undertaking or the value which is 1.5 times the value of like goods domestically supplied by the same or, similarly placed, supplier, as declared by the supplier, whichever is less, other than the turnover of supplies in respect of which refund is claimed under sub-rules (4A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... goods or services, without payment of tax under bond or letter of undertaking. We find merit in the petitioner's contention that Rule 89(4) of the Rules is inapplicable to cases of refund of integrated tax paid on zero rated supply. 13. However, the Appellate Authority failed to address the said contention and proceeded to mechanically reject the petitioner's appeal on, ex facie, erroneous assumption that the petitioner was seeking refund of accumulated ITC. 14. The relevant extract of paragraph 5 of the impugned order, which reflects the reasoning and the conclusion of the Appellate Authority to reject the petitioner's appeal, reads as under: "5. Discussion and Findings: -I have carefully gone through the facts available on....