The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Pune Bench, has allowed a supplier’s refund claim of ₹77,188 on deemed export supplies, holding that an allegation that both the supplier and recipient had claimed refund could not be sustained without evidence concerning the same supplies.
The Bench of Shridhar Mahadeo Bhosale (Judicial Member) and Dr. Nirmal Kumar Soren (Technical Member) found that the recipient’s undertakings and declaration satisfied the conditions for the supplier to claim refund under Rule 89(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.
Buy Now: 210+ GST Judgments E-Magazine – October 2026
The bench set aside both the original rejection and the first appellate order, directing the proper officer to grant the refund with interest, if any, admissible under Section 56 of the CGST Act.
Propix Technologies Private Limited supplied goods to Wockhardt Ltd., an Export Oriented Unit (EOU), under five invoices dated between December 22, 2023, and May 11, 2024.
On January 8, 2025, the supplier filed an application in Form GST RFD-01 seeking refund of ₹77,188, comprising CGST and SGST of ₹38,594 each, paid on these deemed export supplies.
Although the refund concerned only those five supplies, the application mentioned the period April 2022 to May 2024. The supplier explained that this wider period had been entered because of a system-based compulsion.
The proper officer rejected the application on March 5, 2025, citing the inclusion of three financial years, expiry of the two-year limitation period, and non-submission of the recipient’s Form A under Circular No. 14/14/2017-GST dated November 6, 2017.
The rejection order also recorded that the taxpayer had not replied to the show cause notice. The supplier disputed this, maintaining that an email reply with the necessary attachments had been submitted on February 14, 2025.
First Appellate Authority Introduced Double-Claim Ground
The first appellate authority accepted that the application was within time, noting that the relevant supplies were made between December 2023 and May 2024.
Nevertheless, it upheld the rejection on the ground that both the supplier and Wockhardt had filed refund applications, contrary to Rule 89(1).
Challenging this conclusion, the supplier argued that the appellate order did not identify any refund application by the recipient covering the same invoices. It further submitted that the recipient’s undertakings confirming non-availment of input tax credit and non-claiming of refund were already on record.
The Tribunal examined Section 147 of the CGST Act and Notification No. 48/2017-Central Tax dated October 18, 2017, which recognises supplies of goods by a registered person to an EOU as deemed exports.
It explained that tax is paid on a deemed export supply as on other taxable supplies, with the benefit operating through a refund of that tax.
Under the second proviso to Rule 89(1), either the recipient or the supplier may claim the refund, subject to the prescribed conditions. A supplier can claim it where the recipient has not availed input tax credit on the supplies and furnishes an undertaking permitting the supplier to claim refund.
The Tribunal also referred to Notification No. 49/2017-Central Tax, which prescribes supporting evidence, including proof of receipt of goods and the recipient’s undertakings.
The supplier produced the recipient’s monthly Form B records for December 2023 and February to May 2024, accompanied by undertakings collectively covering all five invoices.
These undertakings confirmed that the recipient had not availed input tax credit, would not claim refund on the supplies, and had no objection to the supplier claiming it.
A further declaration dated December 12, 2025, listed the five invoices and confirmed that the recipient had not claimed GST refund for those transactions.
The Tribunal noted that the department did not dispute these documents. It therefore held that the conditions governing the supplier’s refund claim were satisfied.
The Tribunal found that the first appellate order did not identify any refund application by the recipient, its period, or the invoices covered. It also failed to address the recipient’s undertakings and declaration.
Although the department repeated the allegation before the Tribunal, it produced no supporting material.
Consequently, the finding that the recipient had claimed refund on the same supplies could not stand.
The Tribunal expressly left undecided whether the first appellate authority could uphold rejection on a ground absent from the show cause notice and original order, since the allegation itself failed on the evidence.
The department argued that the application was a single, indivisible statutory claim and that limitation had to be examined against the entire period entered in the form.
Rejecting this approach, the Tribunal referred to Section 54(1), read with clause (2)(b) of the Explanation to Section 54. For deemed exports, the relevant date is the date on which the return relating to the supplies is furnished.
The claim concerned five supplies made between December 22, 2023, and May 11, 2024. No return relating to those supplies could have been furnished before January 1, 2024. The application dated January 8, 2025, was therefore within two years.
Merely entering a period beginning in April 2022 did not include supplies from that earlier period in the claim. There was accordingly no earlier-period claim to reject as time-barred.
The Tribunal held that paragraph 2.5 of Circular No. 135/05/2020-GST dated March 31, 2020, had removed the restriction on bunching refund claims across financial years. The department itself acknowledged that such clubbing was permissible.
On Form A, the supplier produced the recipient’s prior intimation dated December 14, 2023, addressed to the jurisdictional officers of both parties, along with an email forwarding it on December 15, 2023.
Both dates preceded the first supply. The department did not dispute the accepted position that the pre-intimation had been submitted by email and physically on December 15, 2023.
The Tribunal concluded that none of the original grounds for rejection survived.
Allowing the appeal, the Tribunal quantified the admissible refund at ₹77,188 and directed its payment with interest, if any, under Section 56.
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.
