9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 1097 - Commissioner - GSTRefund of GST - Condonation of delay of 21 days in filing appeal - time limitation - HELD THAT - In the instant case the appeal has been filed by delay of 21 days from the normal period prescribed under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act 2017. Though the delay in filing the appeal is condonable only for a further period of one month provided that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal is shown and the delay of more than one month is not condonable under the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017. With regard to delay in filing of appeal the appellant has submitted that it was happened due to on going COVID-19 pandemic situation hence he requested for condonation of delay. The appellant has contended that refund is not time-barred under Section 54 of the CGST Act 2017 and stated that relevant date in case of refund of ITC on Export of Goods Services without payment of Tax is the end of the financial year in which the refund claim arises and relevant provision of Section 54 Explanation 2 clause (e); relevant date means - (e) in the case of unutilized input tax credit under sub-section (3) the end of the financial year in which such claim for refund arises - Hence the last date for filing of refund application for Zero-Rated Supplies made without payment of Tax under Section 54(3)(i) read with explanation (2) clause (e) for the F.Y. 2017-2018 as an entire period was 31st March 2020 which was extended due to COVID-19 to 30th June vide Notification No. 35/2020 dated 3rd April 2020 and further was extended to 31st August 2020 by Notification No. 55/2020 dated 27th June 2020. As per provision of clause (a) of Explanation 2(2) of sub-section (14) of Section 54 of CGST Act 2017 in the case of goods exported out of India where a refund of tax paid is available in respect of goods themselves or as the case may be the inputs or input services used in such goods - the relevant date shall be calculated as per (i) (ii) and (iii) of clause (a). Whereas the appellant quoted the unamended clause (e) of explanation (2) of sub-section (14 ) of Section 54 of the CGST Act 2017 which is applicable only in the case of refund of unutilized input tax credit in respect of inverted duty structure as per clause (ii) of the first proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 54 of the CGST Act 2017. In the instant matter the EGMs were filed for the said export consignments on 1-9-2017/29-12-2017 the meaning thereby the export goods left India on 1-9-2017/29-12-2017. As per customs procedure EGM means (Export Goods Manifest) a document which are filed by the carrier of the export consignment before the departure of the carrier (shipments airlines etc., ) and it is considered as proof of shipment. From the conjoint reading of Section 54(14)(2) of the CGST Act 2017 read with Notification No. 35/2020-C.T. dated 3-4-2020 as amended vide Notification No. 55/2020-C.T. dated 27-6-2020 - it is very much clear that refund application has been filed in the instant matter beyond the period of 2 years from the relevant date. The adjudicating authority has rightly and properly rejected the refund application on the ground of time- barred - there are no force in the contention of the appellant that the date of last date for filing of refund application for Zero-Rated Supplies made without payment of Tax under Section 54(3)(i) read with Explanation (2) clause (e) for the F.Y. 2017-2018 as an entire period was 31st March 2020 which was extended due to COVID-19 to 30th June vide Notification No. 35/2020 dated 3rd April 2020 and further was extended to 31st August 2020 by Notification No. 55/2020 dated 27th June 2020 is within the period of limitation. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Relevant date for filing of refund claim of accumulated ITC in case of goods exported out of India without payment of tax. 2. Whether the refund claim filed by the appellant is time-barred as per the provisions of Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Relevant Date for Filing of Refund Claim of Accumulated ITC in Case of Goods Exported Out of India Without Payment of Tax The appellant argued that the relevant date for filing the refund claim should be calculated based on the unamended clause (e) of sub-section (14) of Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017. The appellant maintained that the end of the financial year in which the refund claim arises should be considered as the relevant date. However, the adjudicating authority and the concerned division contended that the relevant date should be calculated as per clause (a) of Explanation 2(2) of sub-section (14) of Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017. This clause specifies that in the case of goods exported out of India, the relevant date is the date on which the ship or aircraft leaves India. The appellate authority found the revenue's contention legally correct and justified. The unamended clause (e) cited by the appellant applies only to refunds of unutilized input tax credit in respect of inverted duty structures, not to exports without payment of tax. Issue 2: Whether the Refund Claim Filed by the Appellant is Time-Barred The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim on the grounds that it was time-barred. The appellant had filed the refund application on 30-6-2020 and 29-7-2020, arguing that the deadline for filing was extended due to COVID-19 to 31st August 2020, as per Notification No. 55/2020, dated 27th June 2020. The adjudicating authority observed that the goods were exported on 1-9-2017 and 23-12-2017. As per clause (a) of Explanation 2(2) of sub-section (14) of Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017, the refund application should have been filed on or before 1-9-2019 and 23-12-2019, respectively. Since the refund application was filed beyond the two-year period from the relevant date, it was deemed time-barred. The appellate authority upheld the adjudicating authority's decision, stating that the refund application was indeed filed beyond the permissible period. The appellant's argument that the deadline was extended due to COVID-19 was not accepted, as the relevant date for filing the refund claim was still beyond the two-year limit. Conclusion: The appellate authority concluded that the adjudicating authority rightly rejected the refund application on the grounds of it being time-barred. The appellant's contention regarding the extension of the deadline due to COVID-19 was not found to be valid. The appeal filed by the appellant was therefore rejected.
|
