2020 (10) TMI 721 - Commissioner - GST

Refund of Input Tax Credit - rejection on account of Inverted Tax Structure - Export at concessional rate of GST - non-compliance with the conditions mentioned at serial no.(v) (ix) of the N/N. 40/2017 dated 23, 10.2017 and 41/2017 dated 23.10.2017 - period November-2017 - Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - Condition No.(v) and (ix) of both the Notification No.40/2017 dated 23.10.2017 and 41/2017 dated 23.10.2017 have not been complied with by the appellant in the instant case. The contention of the appellant that they have submitted copy of purchase orders, shipping bill or bill of jading to the Range Office in respect of supply made by the appellant and therefore condition enumerated in the notification has been very well complied with, is not acceptable. The burden to prove on which date and how the related documents were supplied is on the appellant. There should be a dated acknowledgement duly stamped by the department to prove that the relevant documents have been submitted to the department so that benefit could be provided to the appellant. But the appellant could not produce any substantial document which could prove/substantiate their claim that he has complied With the conditions of both the Notifications i.e. 40/2017 dated 23.10.2017 and 41/2017 dated 23.10.2017. Appeal rejected - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on non-compliance with conditions of Notifications No. 40/2017 and 41/2017.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Original rejecting a refund claim of Input Tax Credit for November 2017 due to non-compliance with conditions of Notifications No. 40/2017 and 41/2017. The appellant supplied goods to exporters at concessional rates but failed to provide required documents to the jurisdictional tax officer as per the notifications. The adjudicating authority rejected the claim citing lack of compliance with conditions.

The appellant contended that all necessary documents were submitted, including via email and speed post, and referred to Circular No. 37/11/2018-GST advising against withholding refunds for minor procedural lapses. They argued for a liberal interpretation of procedural notifications and highlighted the admissibility of the refund claim despite minor errors.

During the personal hearing, the appellant's representative reiterated their submissions, emphasizing subsequent refunds granted for the same issue by jurisdictional authorities. However, the adjudicating authority maintained that the appellant failed to meet the conditions specified in Notifications No. 40/2017 and 41/2017, which required providing copies of purchase orders and export-related documents to the tax authorities.

The Additional Commissioner noted that the appellant did not comply with the conditions outlined in the notifications, specifically regarding the submission of essential documents to prove adherence to concessional rates for export supplies. The burden of proof rested on the appellant to demonstrate timely submission, which they failed to do. Consequently, the appeal was rejected based on the legal provisions and conditions of the relevant notifications.

In conclusion, the rejection of the appeal was upheld due to the appellant's failure to meet the specified conditions of Notifications No. 40/2017 and 41/2017, leading to the rightful denial of the refund claim for Input Tax Credit under the Inverted Duty Tax Structure for November 2017. The judgment emphasized the importance of strict compliance with statutory requirements in claiming refunds under the GST Act, ultimately resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.