The Commissioner has ruled it is the CGST Refund doesn’t apply to the shifting of Input Tax Credit (ITC).

M/s Stone Craft (India) Pvt Ltd is an exporter with a 100 percent success rate and is to the trade of purchasing processing, exporting, and buying natural gravestones. The company isn’t involved in any national force of its products and has submitted claims for refunds pursuant to section 54 (3) of the CGST Act, 2017 in the case of not being able to use ITC.

The payment claim ofRs./-for the period March to May 2020 was denied by the Commissioner. It was discovered that on the aspirant’s (GSTR-3B) return for the month of March 2020, in addition to the zero-rated force of goods ofRs./-, the aspirant had also shown an exempted force ofRs./-but no reversed ITC in agreement with Section 17 (1) (2) of the CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 42 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 on account of exempted force.

It was reported that because the aspirant didn’t reverse ITC on account of the exempted force of, the JRO during the refund examination quantified”Net ITC” in agreement with Section 17 (1) (2) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 42 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 for computation of a valid refund to the aspirant and plant the quantum refundable to the TaxpayerRs./-and the quantum not permissible Refund quantum.

In view of the Verification report submitted by the JRO, SCN was issued to the complainant with the Reflections Refund not permissible to the extent of non-reversal of ITC Rule of CGST Act, 2017. The cessions made by the complaint in reply to SCN were considered and not plant tenable, consequently a Refund ofRs./- plant permissible was sanctioned andRs./- was rejected.