2024 (6) TMI 1163

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssor and manufacturer jewellery and in the course of his business, imports gold and exports gold jewellery in accordance with the Foreign Trade Policy of the Government of India. Petitioner has been regularly filing returns and claiming refund in respect of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on export of goods and services which they have made of IGST at the time of import of gold. 3. For the period June 2018 to September 2018, petitioner filed on 27th July 2020 a refund claim application in Form GST-RFD-01 on the GST portal claiming a refund of Rs. 21,00,000/-. According to petitioner, it is entitled to refund on accumulated unutilised ITC as per Section 54 (3) (i) read with 54 (8) (b) of the CGST Act. The application filed by petitioner was found ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in fairness stated that there is some difference in the figures indicated in the value of the goods declared in the invoice and value in the corresponding shipping bill and it is perfectly alright if the lower of the two is taken, but the value that is taken by respondent no. 1 while determining the refund payable is a wrong value. Copy of the Invoice is also annexed to the petition. The relevant portion of the Invoice which is material for the petition reads as under:- 5. As per the impugned order, respondent no. 1 has taken USD 6479.39 as the value of the goods declared in the GST Invoice because according to him that is what is net realised by petitioner. There is nothing in the rules to indicate nor the rules mention anywhere that it....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2,00,000/-. It cannot be stated that the value of the gold jewellery sold was only Rs. 2,00,000/-. The invoice has to be read to mean that the value of the gold sold is Rs. 5,00,000/-, Rs. 3,00,000/- received as advance in the form of gold, the balance payable is Rs. 2,00,000/-. In the instant case, respondent no. 1 has taken Rs. 2,00,000/- as the value of the jewellery sold which is not correct. 7. In view of the above, we hereby quash and set aside the impugned order dated 25th August 2020. The matter is remanded to respondent no. 1 to process the refund application in accordance with law after applying the formula mentioned above. 8. Petition disposed. No order as to costs. ============= Document 1 MARKS & NOS/ AS ADDRESS ....