Adjudicating authority has rejected the refund claim filed by the appellant on the ground that the appellant had shown in return GSTR-3B the turnover of the zero-rated supply as Zero i.e. “outward Zero-rated supplies are Zero” and the appellant had not corrected in subsequent returns.
Accordingly appeal filed by the appellant is rejected.
Refund- In the instant case, the appellant is engaged in the business of export of goods i.e. Marble, Traverine, Ecaussine and other Monumental or Building Stone have exported the goods without payment of Integrated Tax against Letter of Undertaking, therefore, the input tax credit on inward supplies has accumulated.
Accordingly, the appellant has claimed the refund under Section 54(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 of unutilized input tax credit for the period October, 2017 to December, 2017 amounting to Rs.22,27,497/-. I observed that the adjudicating authority has rejected the refund claim filed by the appellant on the ground that the appellant had shown in return GSTR-3B the turnover of the zero-rated supply as Zero i.e. “outward Zero-rated supplies are Zero” and the appellant had not corrected in subsequent returns.
In this regard, the contention of the appellant is that due to clerical error they have reported their turnover in 3.1(c) Nil rated instead of Zero-rated turnover 3.1(b) in GSTR-3B. The appellant in their defence has stated that there is no dispute about the facts that they had filed GSTR-1 return properly.
Held that- the appellant was required to rectify such omission or incorrect particulars in the subsequent return to be furnished for the month or quarter during which such omission or incorrect particulars are occurred. Thus I did not find force in the contention of appellant. Accordingly I reject the appeal filed by the appellant.
Adjudicating authority has rejected the refund claim filed by the appellant on the ground that the appellant had shown in return GSTR-3B the turnover of the zero-rated supply as Zero i.e. “outward Zero-rated supplies are Zero” and the appellant had not corrected in subsequent returns.
Accordingly appeal filed by the appellant is rejected.
Refund- In the instant case, the appellant is engaged in the business of export of goods i.e. Marble, Traverine, Ecaussine and other Monumental or Building Stone have exported the goods without payment of Integrated Tax against Letter of Undertaking, therefore, the input tax credit on inward supplies has accumulated.
Accordingly, the appellant has claimed the refund under Section 54(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 of unutilized input tax credit for the period October, 2017 to December, 2017 amounting to Rs.22,27,497/-. I observed that the adjudicating authority has rejected the refund claim filed by the appellant on the ground that the appellant had shown in return GSTR-3B the turnover of the zero-rated supply as Zero i.e. “outward Zero-rated supplies are Zero” and the appellant had not corrected in subsequent returns.
In this regard, the contention of the appellant is that due to clerical error they have reported their turnover in 3.1(c) Nil rated instead of Zero-rated turnover 3.1(b) in GSTR-3B. The appellant in their defence has stated that there is no dispute about the facts that they had filed GSTR-1 return properly.
Held that- the appellant was required to rectify such omission or incorrect particulars in the subsequent return to be furnished for the month or quarter during which such omission or incorrect particulars are occurred. Thus I did not find force in the contention of appellant. Accordingly I reject the appeal filed by the appellant.