Platinum Holdings Private Limited VS Additional Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise Appeals

The petitioner, a Special Economic Zone (SEZ), has engaged in purchases from various suppliers/vendors for the development of the SEZ. The focus of the writ petitions lies in the denial of the SEZ’s request for a refund of taxes paid under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (SGST Act), and Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act).

Key points:

1. The petitioner, an SEZ, has made purchases from multiple suppliers/vendors for SEZ development.

2. The writ petitions concern the rejection of the SEZ’s refund request for taxes paid under CGST Act, SGST Act, and IGST Act.

3. The invoices for the supplies to the petitioner included components of SGST, CGST, and IGST.

The case concerns a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) that has made purchases from multiple suppliers/vendors for its development. The SEZ seeks a refund of taxes paid under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (SGST Act), and Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act).

Key points of contention include:

1. Nature of Supplies: The supplies to the petitioner were invoiced with components of SGST, CGST, and IGST. However, as the recipient is a SEZ, the supplies are zero-rated, meaning they are not subject to tax. Thus, only IGST should have been levied.

2. Tax Payments Despite Exemption: Despite not being liable for tax payments, the petitioner settled invoices in full and paid taxes on all zero-rated supplies.

3. Refund Applications: The petitioner filed refund applications for erroneously remitted taxes. Though initially deficient, the applications were corrected and accepted on 11th October 2019.

4. Show Cause Notice: A show cause notice was issued on 31st October 2019, questioning the petitioner’s eligibility for a refund. The respondent argued that, according to Section 54 of the CGST Rules, only a supplier of services could claim a refund, not the SEZ itself.

The case revolves around whether the SEZ is entitled to a refund of taxes paid on zero-rated supplies, despite not being liable for such payments in the first place. The dispute highlights the interpretation of relevant tax laws and rules regarding refunds in the context of SEZs.

The case concerns a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) which made purchases from various suppliers/vendors for its development. The SEZ sought a refund of taxes paid under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (SGST Act), and Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act). The supplies to the SEZ included components of SGST, CGST, and IGST, despite the fact that SEZs are not liable to pay taxes on such supplies. Despite this, taxes were paid on all the zero-rated supplies.

The SEZ filed applications for refund, which were initially deficient and required correction. Upon correction, the applications were accepted. However, a show cause notice was later issued questioning the SEZ’s eligibility for the refund, citing Section 54 of the CGST Rules, which, according to the respondent, only allowed suppliers of services to claim refunds, not the SEZ itself. The SEZ responded to this notice, but the impugned orders-in-original were passed regardless. The SEZ appealed these orders, but the appeals were rejected, leading to the present writ petitions.

The central issue revolves around whether a SEZ unit is entitled to claim a refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC). The authority referred to Section 54 of the CGST Act and Rule 89(1) of the CGST Rules, which govern the procedure for refund applications. The conclusion reached was that only suppliers of goods or services, not recipients like the SEZ, could file refund applications according to the provisions and rules mentioned.

In summary, the case concerns the SEZ’s quest for a refund of taxes paid on zero-rated supplies. Despite being entitled to such refunds, the SEZ’s applications were initially rejected, leading to legal proceedings focused on whether SEZs have the right to claim such refunds directly under the relevant tax laws.

The case at hand concerns a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) which has procured supplies from various suppliers/vendors for its development. The SEZ seeks a refund of taxes paid under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (SGST Act), and Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act). The supplies were invoiced with components of SGST, CGST, and IGST, despite the SEZ being zero-rated and not liable for tax on such supplies.

The SEZ filed applications for tax refund, which initially had deficiencies. After correcting these deficiencies, the applications were accepted. However, a show cause notice was issued questioning the SEZ’s eligibility for the refund, citing Section 54 of the CGST Rules which, according to the respondent, only allows a supplier of services to claim a refund, not the SEZ itself. The SEZ responded to this notice, but the respondent ultimately rejected the refund claims, leading to the filing of appeals and subsequent writ petitions.

The crux of the issue revolves around whether a SEZ unit can claim a refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC). The authority’s interpretation is that only the supplier of goods or services, not the recipient like the SEZ, can claim a refund based on provisions in Section 54 of the CGST Act and Rule 89(1) of the CGST Rules. However, the petitioner argues that there’s no restriction on who can claim a refund and that the term “any person” in Section 54 includes the SEZ. They point to Clause (g) of the Explanation under Section 54 for support.

On the contrary, the revenue emphasizes Rule 89, particularly its second proviso, which suggests that only the supplier can claim a refund. They argue that logistically, it’s challenging for the revenue to verify the eligibility of entities other than the supplier for such refunds. Additionally, they highlight the burden placed on the applicant by Section 54(4) to provide all necessary documentary evidence for a refund.

The case hinges on the interpretation of relevant tax laws and rules, with the SEZ asserting its entitlement to refunds based on the zero-rated nature of the supplies received, while the revenue contends that only suppliers are eligible for such refunds.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: