The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Chandigarh, has held that export invoices issued during the period covered by a refund claim must be included in zero-rated turnover even if the goods are actually exported subsequently, provided the exporter establishes that the goods have been exported.

The Bench of Jatinder Pal Singh (Judicial Member) and Pradeep Kumar Goel (Technical Member) dismissed the CGST Department’s appeal against an appellate order favouring the assessee and found that the corresponding invoices had admittedly been issued within the refund period and that actual export was undisputed.

Buy Now: 160+ GST E-Magazine September 2026

The exporter filed an application seeking a refund of ₹26,72,178 towards accumulated input tax credit arising from exports without payment of tax for April–October 2022.

The refund sanctioning authority allowed ₹26,68,324 through an order dated February 10, 2023.

The Department challenged the sanction before the Additional Commissioner, CGST (Appeals), Chandigarh, raising several issues. The appellate authority dismissed that appeal through an order dated May 14, 2024.

The Department pursued only the issue of whether supplies covered by shipping bills dated after the refund period could be included in that period’s zero-rated turnover.

The Department referred to the shipping bill.

Their respective FOB values were ₹24,878.97, ₹24,878.97 and ₹24,965.85, aggregating to approximately ₹74,724.

It argued that the shipping bills fell outside the relevant period, which ended on October 31, 2022. Relying on Rule 89(4) of the CGST Rules, the Department contended that these values should be excluded from zero-rated turnover because the goods had not been exported within that period.

The ₹74,724 figure represented the disputed export value sought to be excluded from the refund calculation; it was not identified as the refund amount sought to be recovered.

The Tribunal followed its earlier decision dated September 24, 2026, concerning Solitaire Pharmacia Pvt. Ltd., in Appeal No. APL/1/CHD/2026, reported as 2026 (9) TMI 2054.

In that decision, the Bench examined Rule 89(4), the meaning of zero-rated supply under the IGST Act, and Sections 12 and 31 of the CGST Act concerning time of supply and invoicing.

The Tribunal explained that the refund formula involves net ITC, turnover of zero-rated supplies and adjusted total turnover. All these figures must relate to the same relevant period.

Its reasoning distinguished the supply and invoicing of goods intended for export from the subsequent completion of export.

For supplies involving movement of goods, Section 31 requires an invoice to be issued before or at the time of removal. The Tribunal treated the invoice and removal stage as relevant to determining the period of supply, while separately requiring proof that the goods were actually exported.

Accordingly, invoices issued during the relevant period for goods cleared for export under bond or a letter of undertaking would form part of zero-rated turnover even where actual export occurred subsequently.

The Bench expressly clarified that invoice issuance alone does not establish entitlement to refund.

The exporter must establish that the goods have actually been exported. The Tribunal also referred to Form RFD-01, which requires the relevant invoice and shipping-bill particulars for refund claims under Rule 89(4).

In the present case, both decisive facts were undisputed: the invoices were prepared within the refund period, and the goods covered by the three shipping bills had indeed been exported.

The Tribunal therefore rejected the Department’s argument that the subsequent export date rendered the refund inadmissible.

GSTAT dismissed the Department’s appeal and upheld the appellate authority’s order dated May 14, 2024.

The ruling addresses the treatment of export invoices and shipping bills falling in different periods. On the facts before the Bench, the subsequent export date could not alone justify excluding the invoice values from the relevant period’s zero-rated turnover once actual export was established.

The Bench also noticed that the GSTAT portal incorrectly displayed the name of the officer filing the appeal, Shruti Bansal, as the appellant.

Referring to Section 112(3) of the CGST Act read with Rule 33(2) of the GST Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2025, it stated that the Commissioner is the appellant in such a departmental appeal.

The Tribunal directed that the cause title be read as Commissioner of CGST, Chandigarh v. Gurudev Sales Corporation.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: E-Way Bill Mismatch Alone Can’t Justify GST Demand: GSTAT Quashes Demand Against Job Worker