9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 1283 - HC - GSTRefund of input tax credit (ITC) paid on zero rated supply of services exported outside India - petitioner had voluntarily sought amendment of his registration to include supply of services after the relevant period was over - HELD THAT - Section 54(1) states that any person can claim refund of any tax or other amounts paid by the person. Section 16 (3) of the IGST Act permits refund to be claimed in relation to zero rated supply of services only by a registered person. At first blush there appear to be a conflict between Section 54 of the CGST Act and Section 16 of the IGST Act. However Section 16 (3) of the IGST Act read with Section 54 (3) of the CGST Act narrows down the general provision of Section 54 (1) of the CGST Act by stipulating that it is only a registered person who can claim refund in relation to zero rated supplies made with or without payment of tax. In the present case the petitioner is claiming refund of tax paid in relation to zero rated supply of services. The provisions of section 16(3) of the IGST Act and Section 54 (3) of the CGST Act would be applicable. A claim for refund can be made by the petitioner only if it is a registered person. Since Section 25(1) of the CGST Act states that the registration is to be done in such a manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed it would be necessary to look at the Rules regulating registration. The Rules for such purpose are the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules 2017 (for short the Rules ). Rule 8 requires the person seeking registration to submit an application in Part-B of Form GST REG-01. After verification of the application and after obtaining such clarification or information as required the appropriate authority would issue a registration certificate under Rule 10 of the Rules in Form GST REG-06 - no importance is given to the details of the goods or services the person would be supplying. The only requirement is that any person who would have to pay tax on such supply whether of goods or services would have to be registered. Non-mention of the categories of supply being undertaken by the applicant / registered person in the application form cannot preclude grant of refund to such persons. By extension the petitioner would be entitled to a refund in relation to zero rated services once the petitioner is a registered person. The petitioner would not be precluded from claiming such refund on the ground that the certificate of registration does not contain the details of the services which are being supplied. Conclusion - Non-mention of the categories of supply being undertaken by the applicant / registered person in the application form cannot preclude grant of refund to such persons. Both the writ petitions are allowed setting aside the orders of rejection of refund as well as the appellate orders with a direction to the 2nd respondent to refund the input tax credit claimed by the petitioner subject to verification of the claim and quantum of the claim.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Court in these writ petitions are: a) Whether a person registered under the CGST Act, 2017 for supply of goods only, but not explicitly for supply of services, is entitled to claim refund of input tax credit (ITC) paid on zero rated supply of services exported outside India. b) Whether the registration certificate under the CGST Act must specifically mention supply of services in order to claim refund of IGST paid on export of services. c) Whether the amendment of registration to include supply of services after the relevant period for which refund is claimed affects the entitlement to refund for that period. d) The interpretation and interplay of relevant provisions under the CGST Act, 2017 and IGST Act, 2017, especially Sections 16 of the IGST Act and Sections 22, 24, 25, 54 of the CGST Act, and the procedural requirements under the CGST Rules, 2017 regarding registration and refund claims. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue (a) and (b): Entitlement to refund of ITC on zero rated supply of services despite registration initially for supply of goods only Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court examined Section 16 of the IGST Act, which defines zero rated supply as export of goods or services or both, and permits refund of tax paid or input tax credit on such supplies by a registered person. Section 54 of the CGST Act provides the procedure for claiming refund, requiring the claimant to be a registered person. Section 2(94) defines "registered person" as one registered under Section 25 of the CGST Act. Sections 22 and 24 specify persons liable for registration, covering suppliers of taxable goods or services or both. Section 25 prescribes the procedure for registration, including issuance of a single registration certificate per State or Union territory. The CGST Rules, 2017, prescribe the application forms and registration certificates. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the CGST Act contemplates a single comprehensive registration for a person liable to pay tax on supply of goods or services or both. The registration certificate issued under Rule 10 of the CGST Rules does not require specification of all goods or services supplied. The application form (GST REG-01) requires the applicant to specify only the top five goods and top five services supplied, but this is not exhaustive or determinative of the scope of registration. The Court reasoned that non-mention of a particular service in the application or registration certificate does not preclude the registered person from claiming input tax credit or refund on zero rated supply of that service. The Court rejected the authorities' view that separate registration for supply of services is mandatory to claim refund of IGST paid on export of services. The Court held that the requirement is only that the person be registered under the CGST Act, not that the registration certificate must explicitly state supply of services. Key evidence and findings: The petitioner had registered under the CGST Act initially for supply of goods and later amended the registration to include services. The petitioner had supplied zero rated engineering services for metro projects to customers outside India and paid IGST accordingly. The refund claims related to periods prior to the amendment of registration certificate. Application of law to facts: The Court held that since the petitioner was a registered person under the CGST Act during the relevant period, it was entitled to claim refund of unutilized input tax credit on zero rated supply of services, notwithstanding that the registration certificate did not explicitly mention supply of services at that time. Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents argued that the petitioner was not entitled to refund because it was registered only for supply of goods and not for services, and that the amendment to include services came after the relevant period. The Court rejected this, holding that the registration is a single registration and the absence of mention of services in the registration certificate cannot be a ground to deny refund. The Court also held that the petitioner's voluntary amendment application indicated recognition of the need to include services, but this did not affect entitlement to refund for services supplied prior to amendment. Conclusions: The Court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to claim refund of input tax credit on zero rated supply of services despite initial registration for supply of goods only. The registration certificate need not specify the supply of services for such entitlement. Issue (c): Effect of amendment of registration to include supply of services after the relevant period Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court considered the timing of the amendment application (filed after the period for which refund was claimed) and the issuance of the amended registration certificate (effective 19.09.2020). The respondents contended that refund claims for periods prior to amendment should be rejected. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that registration under the CGST Act is a continuous status and the amendment merely updates the particulars. The entitlement to refund depends on being a registered person during the relevant period, not on the later amendment of particulars. The Court found no provision requiring separate registration or amendment prior to supply of services to claim refund. Application of law to facts: The petitioner was registered under the CGST Act during the refund claim periods, even though the registration certificate did not explicitly mention services. The amendment was accepted later but did not affect the petitioner's status as a registered person. Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents' argument that the amendment was necessary before refund claims was rejected as inconsistent with the statutory scheme and the purpose of registration under the CGST Act. Conclusions: The Court held that the amendment of registration to include services after the relevant period does not disentitle the petitioner from claiming refund of input tax credit for zero rated supply of services during that period. Issue (d): Interpretation of statutory provisions and procedural rules regarding registration and refund claims Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court undertook a detailed analysis of the relevant provisions:
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasized that the CGST Act contemplates a single comprehensive registration for a person engaged in taxable supply of goods or services or both. The registration certificate does not require exhaustive listing of all goods or services supplied. The requirement to specify only the top five goods and services in the application form is procedural and not a condition precedent to entitlement to refund. The Court clarified that "taxable supply" includes both goods and services, and registration is triggered by aggregate turnover exceeding prescribed limits for taxable supplies, without distinction between goods and services. Key evidence and findings: The petitioner's registration and refund claims complied with the statutory provisions. The authorities' rejection of refund claims based on the absence of explicit mention of services in the registration certificate was not supported by the statutory scheme. Application of law to facts: The Court applied the statutory definitions and procedural rules to conclude that the petitioner's registration as a supplier of goods and services was valid for claiming refund of input tax credit on zero rated supply of services. Treatment of competing arguments: The Court rejected the respondents' narrow interpretation requiring separate registration or explicit mention of services in the registration certificate as inconsistent with the CGST Act and Rules. Conclusions: The Court held that the statutory framework supports a single registration for taxable supplies of goods and/or services and that registration need not specify all categories of supply exhaustively. Refund claims by a registered person for zero rated supply of services cannot be denied solely on the ground that the registration certificate does not explicitly mention services. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS "A conjoint reading of all the aforesaid provisions of law, can only lead to a conclusion that non-mention of the categories of supply being undertaken by the applicant / registered person, in the application form, cannot preclude grant of refund to such persons. By extension, the petitioner would be entitled to a refund, in relation to zero rated services, once the petitioner is a registered person. The petitioner would not be precluded from claiming such refund on the ground that the certificate of registration does not contain the details of the services which are being supplied." "The requirement under the provisions of the CGST and IGST Acts is that the person claiming the refund should be a registered dealer. There is no provision for registering separately for supply of goods and separately for supply of services. Since there is only one comprehensive registration, the claim of the petitioner cannot be rejected on the ground that the registration certificate did not stipulate that registration was for services also." "The registration certificate issued under Rule 10 of the CGST Rules does not require specification of all goods or services supplied. The application form requires the applicant to specify only the top five goods and top five services supplied, but this is not exhaustive or determinative of the scope of registration." "The petitioner was a registered person under the CGST Act during the relevant period and is entitled to claim refund of unutilized input tax credit on zero rated supply of services notwithstanding that the registration certificate did not explicitly mention supply of services at that time." Final determination: The writ petitions are allowed, the orders rejecting refund claims and appellate orders are set aside, and the authorities are directed to refund the input tax credit claimed by the petitioner subject to verification of the claim and quantum.
|
