Se Forge Limited VS Union Of India

The petitioner is a SEZ unit engaged in manufacturing engineering components, tower flanges, and bearing rings for the wind energy sector, as well as various flanges for other industries, holding GSTIN No.24AAKCS1047G1Z, authorized to operate as a Special Economic Zone at Vadodara, Gujarat, and engaged in the export of goods under a Letter of Undertaking (LUT) from the SEZ unit, and has received supplies from non-SEZ suppliers where some suppliers levy the Integrated.

The petitioner, a SEZ unit in Vadodara, Gujarat, engaged in manufacturing engineering components, tower flanges, and bearing rings for the wind energy sector and various flanges for other industries, holds GSTIN No.24AAKCS1047G1Z and operates as a Special Economic Zone (SEZ), exporting goods under a Letter of Undertaking (LUT). The petitioner received supplies from non-SEZ suppliers, some of whom levied Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST), resulting in unutilized credit in their Electronic Credit Ledger. To address this, the petitioner filed a refund application in Form GST RFD-01 on 28.9.2020 for the period of September 2018 to December 2019, seeking a refund of Rs.8,88,079/- for the unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) under the category of ‘Export of Goods/Services without payment of tax,’ in accordance with Section 54(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), and Rule 89(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (CGST Rules).

for the wind energy sector and other industries, holds GSTIN No.24AAKCS1047G1Z and operates as a Special Economic Zone at Vadodara, Gujarat, exporting goods under Letter of Undertaking (LUT) from the SEZ unit, has received supplies from non-SEZ suppliers, some of whom levied IGST; as a SEZ unit, the petitioner has not been able to utilize the credit, which remains unutilized in the Electronic Credit Ledger; the petitioner filed a refund application in Form GST RFD-01 on 28.9.2020 for the period of September 2018 to December 2019 for the amount of Rs.8,88,079/- in relation to such unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) under the category of ‘Export of Goods/Services without payment of tax’, under Section 54(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) and Rule 89(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (CGST Rules); a show cause notice was issued on 28.10.2020, to which the petitioner replied; the Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim of the petitioner on 23.11.2020 via Order in Original No.GSTD-VII/Vad-I/AC/Ref/04/SE Forge/2020-21 dated 23.11.2020; aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise.

The petitioner, a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) unit in Vadodara, Gujarat, manufactures engineering components, tower flanges, and bearing rings for the wind energy sector and other industries, operating under GSTIN No.24AAKCS1047G1Z and exporting goods under Letter of Undertaking (LUT). The petitioner received supplies from non-SEZ suppliers who levied Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST), which the petitioner couldn’t utilize, leaving the credit unutilized in their Electronic Credit Ledger. They filed a refund application on 28.9.2020 for the period September 2018 to December 2019, amounting to Rs.8,88,079/-, under the category of ‘Export of Goods/Services without payment of tax’ as per Section 54(3) of the CGST Act and Rule 89(4) of the CGST Rules. A show cause notice was issued on 28.10.2020, to which the petitioner replied. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim on 23.11.2020, prompting the petitioner to appeal to the Commissioner, CGST, and Central Excise (Appeals), Vadodara, who also rejected the appeal on 3.2.2021. Subsequently, another refund application was made on 12.3.2022 for the period January 2020 to November 2021, amounting to Rs.22,64,582/-, and a Provisional Refund Order for Rs.18,11,665/- was issued on 27.3.2022. However, a show cause notice was issued on 28.4.2022, stating the Provisional Refund Order was erroneously granted. The petitioner responded on 10.5.2022, but the adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim and directed the recovery of the provisionally sanctioned refund amount, arguing that Section 54(3) of the CGST Act, read with Rule 89(1) and Rule 89(2)(f) of the CGST Rules, mandates only the.

The petitioner, an SEZ unit involved in manufacturing engineering components, tower flanges, and bearing rings for the wind energy sector, operates in Vadodara, Gujarat, and exports goods under a Letter of Undertaking (LUT). They received supplies from non-SEZ suppliers, some of whom levied IGST. Unable to utilize this credit, the petitioner filed for a refund of Rs.8,88,079/- for the period September 2018 to December 2019 under Section 54(3) of the CGST Act and Rule 89(4) of the CGST Rules. A show cause notice was issued, and their refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on 23.11.2020. The petitioner appealed to the Commissioner, CGST, and Central Excise, who also rejected the appeal on 3.2.2021. Another refund application for Rs.22,64,582/- for the period January 2020 to November 2021 was provisionally approved for Rs.18,11,665/- on 27.3.2022. However, a show cause notice was issued on 28.4.2022, and the provisional refund was contested, leading to its rejection. The petitioner argues that the CGST Act does not differentiate between SEZ units and other registered entities regarding ITC eligibility and seeks judicial relief to quash the impugned orders and direct the respondents to grant the ITC refund.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: