Clarifications on exports related refund issues
Circular No. 37/11/2018-GST issued by CBEC to give clarifications on exports related refund issues. It is to ensure uniformity in the implementation of the provisions of the law across field formations of CBEC
Board vide Circular No. 17/17/2017 – GST dated 15th November 2017 and Circular No. 24/24/2017 – GST dated 21st December 2017 clarified various issues in relation to processing of claims for refund. Since then, several representations have been received seeking further clarifications on issues relating to refund. In order to clarify these issues and with a view to ensure uniformity in the implementation of the provisions of the law across field formations, the Board, in exercise of its powers conferred by section 168 (1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), hereby clarifies the issues raised as below:
Non-availment of drawback: The third proviso to sub-section (3) of section 54 of the CGST Act states that no refund of input tax credit shall be allowed in cases where the supplier of goods or services or both avails of drawback in respect of central tax. 2.1 This has been clarified in paragraph 8.0 of Circular No. 24/24/2017 – GST, dated 21st
December 2017. In the said paragraph, reference to “section 54(3)(ii) of the CGST Act” is a typographical error and it should read as “section 54(3)(i) of the CGST Act”. It may be noted that in the said circular reference has been made only to central tax, integrated tax, State / Union territory tax and not to customs duty leviable under the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, a supplier availing of drawback only with respect to basic customs duty shall be eligible for
refund of unutilized input tax credit of central tax / State tax / Union territory tax / integrated tax / compensation cess under the said provision. It is further clarified that refund of eligible Page 2 of 8 credit on account of State tax shall be available even if the supplier of goods or services or both has availed of drawback in respect of central tax.
Amendment through Table 9 of GSTR-1: It has been reported that refund claims are not being processed on account of mis-matches between data contained in FORM GSTR-1, FORM GSTR-3B and shipping bills/bills of export. In this connection, it may be noted that the facility of filing of Table 9 in FORM GSTR-1, an amendment table which
allows for amendments of invoices/ shipping bills details furnished in FORM GSTR-1 for earlier tax period, is already available. If a taxpayer has committed an error while entering the details of an invoice / shipping bill / bill of export in Table 6A or Table 6B of FORM GSTR-1, he can rectify the same in Table 9 of FORM GSTR-1.
It is advised that while processing refund claims on account of zero rated supplies, information contained in Table 9 of FORM GSTR-1 of the subsequent tax periods should be taken into cognizance, wherever applicable.
Field formations are also advised to refer to Circular No. 26/26/2017 – GST dated 29th December, 2017, wherein the procedure for rectification of errors made while filing the returns in FORM GSTR-3B has been provided. Therefore, in case of discrepancies between the data furnished by the taxpayer in FORM GSTR-3B and FORM GSTR-1, the officer shall refer to the said Circular and process the refund application accordingly.
Exports without LUT: Export of goods or services can be made without payment of integrated tax under the provisions of rule 96A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (the CGST Rules). Under the said provisions, an exporter is required to furnish a bond or Letter of Undertaking (LUT) to the jurisdictional Commissioner before effecting zero rated supplies. A detailed procedure for filing of LUT has already been specified vide Circular No. 8/8/2017 –GST dated 4th October, 2017. It has been brought to the notice of the Board that in
some cases, such zero rated supplies have been made before filing the LUT and refund claims for unutilized input tax credit have been filed.
In this regard, it is emphasised that the substantive benefits of zero rating may not be denied where it has been established that exports in terms of the relevant provisions have been made. The delay in furnishing of LUT in such cases may be condoned and the facility for export under LUT may be allowed on ex post facto basis taking into account the facts and circumstances of each case.
Exports after specified period: Rule 96A (1) of the CGST Rules provides that any registered person may export goods or services without payment of integrated tax after furnishing a LUT / bond and that he would be liable to pay the tax due along with the interest as applicable within a period of fifteen days after the expiry of three months or such further Page 3 of 8 period as may be allowed by the Commissioner from the date of issue of the invoice for
export, if the goods are not exported out of India. The time period in case of services is fifteen days after the expiry of one year or such further period as may be allowed by the Commissioner from the date of issue of the invoice for export, if the payment of such services is not received by the exporter in convertible foreign exchange.
It has been reported that the exporters have been asked to pay integrated tax where the goods have been exported but not within three months from the date of the issue of the invoice for export. In this regard, it is emphasised that exports have been zero rated under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act) and as long as goods have actually been exported even after a period of three months, payment of integrated tax first and claiming refund at a subsequent date should not be insisted upon. In such cases, the jurisdictional Commissioner may consider granting extension of time limit for export as provided in the said sub-rule on post facto basis keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case. The same principle should be followed in case of export of services.