Abi Technologies VS Assistant Commissioner of Customs

The petitioner has approached the court with a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to compel the respondent to refund a sum of Rs. 24,72,018 for exports made during July, September, and October 2017. The petitioner asserts that all export details were correctly filed in the monthly returns using Form GSTR-1, showing the payment of taxes through debiting the input tax credit. However, the petitioner acknowledges a mistake was made in the GSTR-3B return, which is governed by Rule 61(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner’s error in the GSTR-3B return is central to the issue, suggesting a discrepancy or oversight in the submission that may have affected the refund claim. The court is now tasked with addressing whether the respondent should be directed to sanction the requested refund despite the claimed mistake in the filing process.

The petitioner has initiated this writ petition seeking a Mandamus to compel the respondent to approve a refund of Rs. 24,72,018 for exports conducted in July, September, and October 2017. The petitioner asserts that they accurately reported the export details in Form GSTR-1, including the payment of tax via input tax credit. However, a mistake was identified in the petitioner’s submission in Form GSTR-3B, in accordance with Rule 61(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017.

The petitioner’s counsel explains that the exports were correctly classified as zero-rated supplies, which should have been recorded in column 3.1(b) of Form GSTR-3B. Instead, due to an error, the petitioner mistakenly listed the exports as outward taxable supplies (other than zero-rated, nil-rated, or exempted). This error was repeated for all three months in question, leading to an improper categorization of the exported goods and consequently, the denial of the refund.

The counsel argues that the error was unintentional and was consistent across the specified months, impacting the refund process despite the correct tax payments. The petitioner requests the court to direct the respondent to rectify this mistake and sanction the refund as claimed.

The petitioner has filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to compel the respondent to refund a sum of Rs. 24,72,018 for exports made in July, September, and October of 2017. The petitioner asserts that they correctly declared the details of these exports in their monthly returns filed in Form GSTR-1, showing payment of tax through debiting the input tax credit. However, they admit to making an error in Form GSTR-3B under Rule 61(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017. Specifically, they mistakenly classified the exports in GSTR-3B as outward taxable supplies (other than zero-rated, nil-rated, and exempted) rather than as zero-rated supplies, which should have been reported in column 3.1(b).

The petitioner’s counsel explained that this mistake was consistent across all three months in question. Consequently, the petitioner has been denied a refund of the integrated tax on exports as per the CGST Act, 2017 and the IGST Act, 2017. The counsel referenced Circular No. 45/19/2018-GST, dated May 30, 2018, issued by the GST Policy Wing of the C.B.I. & C., which acknowledges that some registered persons made similar errors in declaring exports of services on payment of integrated tax. The circular clarifies that such supplies should be shown in column 3.1(b) of FORM GSTR-3B, despite being correctly declared in Tables 6A or 6B of FORM GSTR-1 for the relevant tax period.

The petitioner is therefore seeking rectification of the reported errors to qualify for the refund of the integrated tax paid on these exports, aligning with the guidelines and clarifications provided in the circular.

The petitioner has filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to compel the respondent to sanction a refund of Rs. 24,72,018 for exports made in July, September, and October 2017. The petitioner contends that although the details of these exports were correctly declared in Form GSTR-1 with payment of tax via input tax credit, there was an error in the GSTR-3B form, specifically under Rule 61(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the exports were zero-rated supplies and should have been reported in column 3.1(b) of Form GSTR-3B. However, the petitioner mistakenly listed them as outward taxable supplies in a different section. This mistake was consistent across the three months in question, leading to the denial of the refund for integrated tax on exports under the CGST and IGST Acts.

The counsel referred to Circular No. 45/19/2018-GST, dated 30.05.2018, issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), which addressed similar errors. The circular clarifies that registered persons who incorrectly declared export services or supplies to Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developers or units in column 3.1(a) instead of 3.1(b) of Form GSTR-3B, while having correctly reported details in Form GSTR-1, faced issues with the GST common portal’s validation system. This system limitation prevented them from filing the refund application for integrated tax paid on exports or SEZ supplies.

The circular indicated that for tax periods from 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2018, such registered persons would be allowed to submit the refund application in Form GST RFD-01A, despite the initial incorrect filing. The petitioner’s counsel argued that this clarification should apply to their case, thus entitling the petitioner to the refund they seek.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: