GST Rulings

Can SEZ Unit Claim Refund of GST Input Tax Credit on Exports?

Brief Facts

The appellant is a unit operating in the Special Economic Zone (SEZ). It is engaged in export of goods. It availed input tax credit (ITC) on inward supplies from entities in the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA).

Issue

The SEZ unit applied for refund of un-utilised ITC. Such accumulation arose on account of export of goods. The assessing authority rejected the refund claim.

Provisions in Law

According to Section 54(3) of the CGST Act, refund of unutilised ITC is allowed in case of zero-rated supplies (viz., exports) made without payment of GST. The said sub-section does not distinguish between SEZ and non-SEZ applicants.

However, according to the second proviso to Rule 89(1) of CGST Rules, the application for refund “shall” be filed by the supplier of goods / services in respect of supplies to a SEZ unit / SEZ developer.

Further, as per Rule 89(2)(f) ibid, such refund application shall be accompanied by a declaration that GST has not been collected from the SEZ unit / SEZ developer, where the refund is on account of supply of goods / services to a SEZ unit / SEZ developer.

Order

[By the Appellate Authority – GST (Andhra Pradesh)] [1] It is evident from a conjoint reading of the above provisions that GST law facilitates refund claim to the ‘suppliers to SEZ units’ (viz., those located in DTA) with payment of GST. Hence, SEZ units / developers cannot claim refund of unutilised ITC on inward supplies from the DTA.

[1] Order No. 4990 of 2020

Comments

The law, in theory and practice, allows supplies to SEZ units either with or without payment of GST. For supplies with payment of GST, the tax component is paid by the supplier (located in the DTA) to the Government from its pocket. Thereafter, the supplier can apply for refund. There is no provision for suppliers located in DTA to pass on ITC to recipient(s) located in SEZ.

At this juncture, it is interesting to recall the judgment[1] of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, which is distinguishable on facts. Therein, SEZ unit was permitted to claim refund of IGST distributed by Input Service Distributor (ISD) since no specific supplier can claim refund under the GST Act / Rules.

[1] R/Special Civil Application No. 15473 of 2019

Srinivasan V, Advocate

Recent Posts

EWB detention proceedings conclude on penalty payment, no need to issue order: Orissa HC

Orissa HC judgment dt. 18.02.2025 in W.P.(C) No. 3055 of 2025 Goods were detained &…

1 month ago

Refund limitation for GST wrongly paid

GST was paid but later clarified as not payable by a beneficial circular. In Messrs…

2 months ago

GST | Should 3 months be construed as 90 days for limitation?

Order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court [dated 05.02.2025, in Cotton Corporation of India vs.…

2 months ago

GST | Should the date of issue of notice/order be included to calculate limitation?

Order of the Patna High Court [dated 04.02.2025, in Brand Protection Services (P.) Ltd. vs.…

2 months ago

Notice/order can be served on the portal only if it cannot be served in person / by post / email: Madras HC

Order of the High Court of Madras [dated 06.01.2025, in Udumalpet Sarvodaya Sangham vs. Authority,…

3 months ago

Goods intercepted due to absence of e-invoice; proceedings to lie u/s.122 not s.129 CGST Act: HC

Order of the High Court of Kerala [dated 07.11.2024, in OSEL Devices Ltd. vs. Assistant…

4 months ago