9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 949 - Commissioner - GSTRefund of IGST - Export of Service with payment of IGST - rejection of refund due to non submission of BRC or Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates, required in case of Export of Services as per rule 89(2) (c) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT - As per Rule 89(2) (c) of the CGST Rules, 2017, a Statement containing the number and date of invoices and the relevant Bank Realization Certificate or Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates, as the case may be is required, in a case where the refund is on account of the export of services - Further, Board has clarified the issue vide Para -12 and 14.2 of Circular No. 37/11/2018-GST dated 15.03.2018 stating that insistence on proof of realization of export proceeds for processing of refund claims related to export of goods has not been envisaged in the law and should not be insisted upon. In the instant case, the appellant has submitted a copy of Foreign Inward Remittance Statement issued by the ICICI Bank alongwith a copy of export Invoice No. 01 dated 18.08.2017 raised by the appellant. But no where in the statement details of invoice i.e. the number and date is mentioned vide which the statement can be co-related with the export of service made by the appellant. In the absence of the details of invoice in the statement it can not be ascertained that it pertains to the particular invoice. Hence, it can not be treated a valid FIRC (Foreign Inward Remittance Statement) which is required as per rule 89(2) (c) of CGST Rules, 2017. Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
1. Refund of IGST for export of service rejected due to non-submission of BRC or FIRC. 2. Appellant's grounds for appeal against rejection of refund claim. 3. Interpretation of Rule 89(2)(c) of CGST Rules, 2017 regarding submission of FIRC. 4. Applicability of Circular No. 37/11/2018-GST on processing refund claims. 5. Evaluation of documents submitted by the appellant for refund claim. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim of IGST for export of service due to non-submission of Bank Realization Certificate (BRC) or Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates (FIRC) as required by Rule 89(2)(c) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The adjudicating authority rejected the claim on this basis. 2. The appellant presented various grounds for appeal, arguing that the refund claim was admissible as per GST law, and the rejection was unjustified. They contended that the conditions for export of service, including receipt of payment in convertible foreign exchange, were met. Additionally, they cited RBI instructions on FIRC discontinuance and Circular No. 37/11/2018-GST to support their claim. 3. The Commissioner analyzed Rule 89(2)(c) of the CGST Rules, 2017, which mandates the submission of a statement with relevant BRC or FIRC for export of services. Referring to Circular No. 37/11/2018-GST, it clarified the documentation requirements for processing refund claims related to exports, emphasizing the significance of FIRC in such cases. 4. The Commissioner examined the documents submitted by the appellant, including a Foreign Inward Remittance Statement and an export invoice. However, the statement lacked details linking it to the specific invoice, rendering it inadequate as a valid FIRC. Consequently, the Commissioner upheld the adjudicating authority's decision to reject the refund claim. 5. Following a thorough review of the case records and submissions, the Commissioner concluded that the appellant's appeal lacked merit, and the rejection of the refund claim was justified based on non-compliance with the FIRC submission requirement. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision of the adjudicating authority. This detailed analysis of the issues involved in the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the legal reasoning and application of relevant provisions in the context of the refund claim for IGST on export of service.
|
