The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has issued clarification on regularisation of refund of IGST availed in contravention of Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules, 2017, in cases where the exporters had imported certain inputs without payment of integrated taxes and compensation cess.
Rule 96(10) of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (CGST Rules) provides for a bar on availment of the refund of integrated tax (IGST) paid on export of goods or services, if benefits of certain concessional/exemption notifications, as specified in the said sub-rule, have been availed on inputs/raw materials imported or procured domestically.
In this regard, references have been received from the field formations and trade/ industry wherein clarification has been sought on whether refund of integrated tax paid on exports of goods by a registered person can be regularized in a case where the registered person had initially imported inputs without payment of integrated tax and compensation cess, by availing the benefits under Notification No. 78/2017-Customs dated 13.10.2017 or Notification No. 79/2017-Customs dated 13.10.2017, but subsequently, at a later date, the said person has either paid the IGST and compensation cess, along with interest, on such imported inputs or is now willing to pay such IGST and compensation cess, along with interest.
Notification No. 16/2020-CT dated 23.03.2020, an Explanation was inserted in sub-rule (10) of rule 96 of CGST Rules retrospectively with effect from 23.10.2017. As per the explanation the benefit of the notifications mentioned therein shall not be considered to have been availed only where the registered person has paid Integrated Goods and Services Tax and Compensation Cess on inputs and has availed exemption of only Basic Customs Duty (BCD) under the notifications.
A bare perusal of the Explanation, which was inserted with retrospective effect, reveals that in cases where the benefits of these exemption notifications have not been availed in respect of IGST and compensation cess, it shall be deemed that benefit of the said notifications has not been availed for the purpose of sub-rule (10) of rule 96 of CGST Rules.
Therefore, extension of logic given in the said Explanation may lead to a view that in cases where inputs were initially imported without payment of integrated tax and compensation cess but subsequently, IGST and compensation cess on such imported inputs is paid at a later date, along with interest, then in such cases, it can be considered that the benefits of notifications mentioned in clause (b) of sub-rule (10) of rule 96 of CGST Rules have not been availed for the purpose of said sub-rule.
The refund of IGST claimed on exports made with payment of Integrated tax in cases may not be considered to be in contravention of provisions of sub-rule (10) of rule 96 of CGST Rules.
Where the inputs were initially imported without payment of integrated tax and compensation cess by availing benefits under Notification No. 78/2017-Customs dated 13.10.2017 or Notification No. 79/2017-Customs dated 13.10.2017, but subsequently, IGST and compensation cess on such imported inputs are paid at a later date, along with interest, and the Bill of Entry in respect of the import of the inputs is got reassessed through the jurisdictional Customs authorities to this effect, then the IGST, paid on exports of goods, refunded to the exporter shall not be considered to be in contravention of provisions of sub-rule (10) of rule 96 of CGST Rules.
Circular No. 233/27/2024-GST
Date: 10/09/2024
