SEZ unit is eligible to claim refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC)
Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 –– Refund by SEZ –– The petitioner is a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) and has effected purchases from several suppliers/vendors for the development of the SEZ. The petitioner’s request for refund of taxes paid under the Act was rejected. A show cause notice was issued on 31.10.2019, wherein the respondent being of the view that the petitioner was not entitled to the refund on various grounds, including that, as per Section 54 of the Act, only a supplier of services would be entitled to claim refund and not the SEZ itself. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no restriction placed on who might claim refund of tax. The court observed that on a combined reading of Section 54 and Rule 89, the restriction which has been read into the provision by the Revenue is misplaced. It is a settled position that there can be no insertion of a word or phrase in a statutory provision or in a Rule which must be read and applied, as framed. No restrictions or amplifications of the Rule are permissible by interpretation. The court further observed that the respondent has raised a legitimate apprehension; firstly, that such refund would be issued to the petitioner only if it is established that no such claim has been made by the supplier, and secondly, that the tax paid by the supplier to the SEZ has, in fact, been remitted to the treasury. This is a matter of fact which the petitioner will have to establish before the respondent in accordance to Section 54(4) of the Act.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court directed the petitioner to appear before the respondent on a date to be fixed by the authority and provide all material available with it in support of its claim.
SEZ unit is eligible to claim refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC)
Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 –– Refund by SEZ –– The petitioner is a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) and has effected purchases from several suppliers/vendors for the development of the SEZ. The petitioner’s request for refund of taxes paid under the Act was rejected. A show cause notice was issued on 31.10.2019, wherein the respondent being of the view that the petitioner was not entitled to the refund on various grounds, including that, as per Section 54 of the Act, only a supplier of services would be entitled to claim refund and not the SEZ itself. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no restriction placed on who might claim refund of tax. The court observed that on a combined reading of Section 54 and Rule 89, the restriction which has been read into the provision by the Revenue is misplaced. It is a settled position that there can be no insertion of a word or phrase in a statutory provision or in a Rule which must be read and applied, as framed. No restrictions or amplifications of the Rule are permissible by interpretation. The court further observed that the respondent has raised a legitimate apprehension; firstly, that such refund would be issued to the petitioner only if it is established that no such claim has been made by the supplier, and secondly, that the tax paid by the supplier to the SEZ has, in fact, been remitted to the treasury. This is a matter of fact which the petitioner will have to establish before the respondent in accordance to Section 54(4) of the Act.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court directed the petitioner to appear before the respondent on a date to be fixed by the authority and provide all material available with it in support of its claim.