9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 1342 - Commissioner - GSTRefund of IGST paid - export of services - rejection of refund on the ground that the appellant has not submitted the Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates - HELD THAT - The appellant had exported the service on payment of IGST and claimed the refund of IGST paid on export of services. Rule 89(2) (c) of CGST Rules 2017 stipulates that the refund application shall be accompanied by the documentary evidences - from the clarification issued by CBEC vide para no. 12 of Circular no. 37/11/2018-GST dated 15.03.18, it is ample clear that a' statement containing the number and date of invoices and the relevant Bank Realization Certificates (BRC) or Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates (FIRC) is required in case of export of services. Though the appellant vide their submission dated 22.01.19 has now submitted the statement containing the number and date of invoices but they have not submitted the Bank Realization Certificates (BRC) or Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates (FIRC) in this regards. The appellant vide their letter dated 04.02.19 has submitted to this office the unsigned three inward payment customer advice dated 24.01.2019 issued by Standard Chartered - On perusal of these advices, it is found that no references in respect of invoice no. are available. Besides it, in all these advices, in the Column of Remittance Amount, USD 100.00 only are mentioned whereas as per statement of invoice submitted by the appellant, invoice amount in USD 23250 is in one invoice and invoice amount USD 31850 is in the another invoice. Therefore, these inward payment customer advice dated 24.01.2019 issued by Standard Chartered can not be accepted as Bank Realisation Certificates (BRC) or Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates (FIRC). Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
Appeal against rejection of refund claim for IGST paid on export of service due to missing Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates. Analysis: The appeal was filed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 by M/s Login Radius LLP against the Order in Original rejecting their refund claim for IGST paid on export of service. The appellant submitted a refund application in RFD-01A for ?6,34,628 in August 2017, but the claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority for not providing the necessary Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates. The appellant contended that they had submitted a certificate of Foreign Inward Remittance along with a bank statement from Standard Chartered Bank, Jaipur, proving receipt of foreign remittance against the export of service. The appellant raised several grounds in their appeal, including the submission of certificates and bank statements as per RBI guidance, lack of prescribed format for Foreign Remittance Certificates from their banker, and compliance with tax liability rules for export of Software Consultancy Service under CGST Rules, 2017. During the personal hearing, the appellant's advocate presented detailed arguments and additional documentation, emphasizing the facts available on record. The Additional Commissioner (Appeals) carefully reviewed the case records and submissions. It was noted that the appellant had exported services and claimed a refund of IGST paid on such exports. Rule 89(2)(c) of CGST Rules 2017 mandates the submission of relevant Bank Realisation Certificates or Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates for refund applications related to the export of services. A circular by CBEC clarified the requirement of these certificates for export of services, distinguishing it from the export of goods where realization of export proceeds is not a pre-condition. Despite the appellant's submission of a statement with invoice details, the absence of Bank Realization Certificates or Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates remained a critical issue. The appellant's submission of unsigned inward payment customer advice from Standard Chartered Bank was deemed insufficient as it lacked references to specific invoices and accurate remittance amounts. Consequently, the appeal was rejected by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) based on the non-compliance with the essential documentary evidence required for refund claims on export of services. In conclusion, the judgment upheld the rejection of the appellant's appeal due to the failure to provide the necessary Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates as mandated by the CGST Rules 2017 and CBEC circular guidelines. The importance of complying with documentary evidence requirements for refund claims on export of services was emphasized, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
|
