2020 (1) TMI 1292 - Commissioner - GST

Refund of unutilized ITC - export of goods and services without payment of Integrated Tax - rejection of refund on the ground that the appellant carried out business activity from an undeclared place of business and issued improper tax invoices showing undeclared address - HELD THAT - A supplier or recipient under GST have to make supplies or receive supplies from/to a defined place which could be principal place of business or place of business or place of usual residence. The appellant has made supplies from the undeclared place and thus invoice issued with such address cannot be treated as legal and proper tax invoice. In the absence of proper tax invoices. the refund is not admissible to the appellant under Rule 89 of CGST rules, 2017. The appellant had made application for addition of aforementioned undeclared place of business only after the adjudicating authority issued SCN post verification of facts which shows that the appellant concealed the activity from the department and carried out the business activity from the undeclared place of business. Further, the appellant has not submitted bill no. 84 dated 23.08.2018 issued by M/s Rudraksh Tyres for an amount of ₹ 5446/-. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order in Original for refund of unutilized ITC on export of goods and services without payment of Integrated Tax.

Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction and Refund Application: The appellant, a registered entity, filed a refund application for unutilized ITC on exports. The adjudicating authority raised concerns regarding an undeclared place of business and missing documentation, leading to a Show Cause Notice (SCN) for rejection of the refund claim.

2. Contentions and Replies: The appellant responded to the SCN, explaining that the undeclared place of business was owned by them and an application for its addition was filed post-SCN. However, the adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim based on the appellant's business activities from the undeclared place and improper tax invoices.

3. Legal Interpretation: The Commissioner analyzed relevant sections and rules under the GST Act, emphasizing the importance of proper tax invoices and the display of registration details as per the rules. It was noted that the appellant's supplies from the undeclared place did not comply with legal requirements, rendering the invoices improper.

4. Decision and Dismissal: Considering the findings, the Commissioner upheld the adjudicating authority's decision to reject the refund claim due to the appellant's non-compliance with invoicing rules and conducting business activities from an undeclared place. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the rejection of the refund claim.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, contentions, legal interpretations, and the final decision rendered by the Commissioner in the case concerning the refund claim for unutilized ITC on exports.