TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1411
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id was not processed through the Customs EDI system. Further, the appellant paid the entire amount of IGST was once again paid and shown in the correct column of the GSTR-3B return for the period August-2019, and the refund of IGST paid was processed through the Customs EDI system. Since the appellant had already paid the IGST on such exports in the months of November-2018, December-2018 and February-2019, and wrongly reported in a different column pertaining to the domestic clearances, instead of exports on payment of IGST, in the respective GSTR-3B returns, such amount was excess payment of IGST on export of goods and hence, they had filed a refund claim of excess paid IGST during the months of November-2018, December-2018 and February-2019. The refund claims were rejected vide OIO Nos. 306/2019-20 dated 18-12-2020 (November-2018 for Rs. 941390/-), 307/2019-20 dated 18-12-2020 (December-2018 for Rs. 455293/-), 308/2019-20 dated 18-12-2020 (February-2019 for Rs. 430587/-). Aggrieved by the rejection of the refund claims of excess paid IGST, the appellant filed appeals before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), CGST. The first appellate authority i.e. the Joint Commissioner (Appeals)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orting error, the IGST paid at the time of export did not result in the corresponding automatic refund from Customs EDI system. Further, In an attempt to rectify the position, the same export turnover was subsequently reported correctly and the same IGST of a total of Rs. 1827272/- (Nov-2018 - Rs. 941390/-, Dec-2018 - Rs. 455293/-, and Feb-2019 - Rs. 430587/-) was paid again, and shown in the GSTR-3B of August-2019. On such payment the refund of Rs. 1827272/- was received by automatic mode from Customs EDI system for the three months on account of exports made on payment of IGST. However, the refund of the original initial payment of IGST made in respective months remains unrefunded. He therefore, has filed the present refund claim for the original IGST payment, and not for the amount paid in August-2019 and refunded through Customs automatic mode. He prays to allow the appeals. 4.0 The Ld AR appearing for the Revenue (Centre) submits that the appellant has filed these refund applications stating that at the time of filing of monthly return for the month of November 2018, December 2018 and February 2019, the details of export supplies made on payment of IGST were entered in Colu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not establish payment of excess tax during the period. It is submitted that in order to be eligible for refund the appellant has to demonstrate by producing sufficient evidence including reconciliation / computation statement to establish that the amount of tax declared and paid and reported in Column 3(1)(a) of the GSTR-3B returns for the months of November 2018, December 2018 and February 2019 included the IGST paid on the export supplies in addition to the tax payable on the domestic supplies made during the period and the same amount of IGST paid on export supplies as reported in Column 3(1)(a) of the respective GSTR-3B returns were again reported in the Column 3(1)(b) of the GSTR-3B returns for the month of August 2019 and the IGST was paid through the said return. 5.0 Heard both sides. We have also seen the case records, annexures, reconciliation statements and the written submissions made by both sides. 6.0 We find that the both the Assistant Commissioner, as well as the Ld Joint Commissioner (Appeals) did not make any efforts to understand which amount is claimed as refund and which amount was refunded through automated system of Customs. We find that the refund clai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....GSTR-1 Return, was not paid erroneous, and could not be treated as excess paid amount, especially when the same amount was once again paid in August-2019. 8.0 We find that the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) has mechanically rejected the appeals and has not gone into the details of the GST Returns submitted by the appellant. It is clearly visible on record, that the appellant has paid IGST once in the respective months of November-2018, December-2018,and February-2019, and once again in the month of August-2019. The amount paid in August-2019, has been refunded as IGST paid exports through the Customs automated process, and the amount paid during the respective months of November-2018, December-2018,and February-2019 totally amounting to Rs. 1827272/- stands as excess paid amount. It is settled law that tax cannot be collected without the authority of law. Therefore, the excess paid amount cannot be held back and is liable to be returned / refunded to the appellant. 9.0 We find that the mistake committed by the appellant while filing the GSTR-3B returns, is a clerical mistake of making correct entries at wrong places, which is subsequently explained in the reconciliation stateme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....October, 2025 passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, CT & GST Circle, Cuttack-I East, Cuttack rejecting the application for refund cannot be sustained and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. 11.0 We also would refer to the judgement of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, in the case of Merck Life Science Private Limited Versus The Union of India cited in 2025 (11) TMI 1419 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, wherein Hon'ble High Court has held that, 14. A plain reading of Section 77(1) of the CGST Act will clearly indicate that the taxpayer who pays tax to the Central Authority by oversight, inadvertence and erroneously, would be entitled to refund of the amount of taxes so paid in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. 15. A similar provision exists in the IGST Act which relates to Inter-State supply and Section 19(1) of the IGST Act also contemplates that, if an Integrated Tax on a supply considered by the taxpayer to be an Inter-State supply is subsequently held to be an Inter-State supply, such taxpayer shall be granted refund of the amount of integrated tax so paid in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the petitioner had made payment to the State GST Authorities subsequent to the payment made to the Central GST Authorities. It is therefore clear that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have admitted that the petitioner had made such payment in favour of the Central GST Authorities towards IGST prior to making similar payment to the State GST Authorities. 20. As held by the High Court of Madras and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the aforesaid judgments, Section 54 of the CGST Act and Rule 89(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017 have been held to be directory and not mandatory. It is also significant to note that having regard to Article 265 of the Constitution of India, the respondent - Central GST authorities were not entitled to collect IGST form the petitioner, who was not liable to pay the same and consequently, upon the petitioner paying the same amount to the State GST authorities subsequently, the respondent-Centre was not entitled to retain the IGST and consequently, by applying the principles of restitution and unjust enrichment, the respondent - Centre was obligated to refund IGST back to the petitioner. 21. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion th....