Page 106 - GSTL_ 28th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 4

552 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 36
track their refund claims, against the supplies made to such SEZ unit, with
payment of tax. Therefore, the contention of the taxpayer that the SEZ unit
can also make refund claim against the zero-rated supplies made without
payment of tax, is not tenable.
2.7 Also we would like to bring your kind attention towards the direction
of Adjudicating Authority to furnish declaration from all the vendors who
made supplies to us, against which the present claim is preferred for refund
of unutilized ITC to the effect that the vendors have not availed the refund
of amounts paid on supplies made to the taxpayers SEZ unit. We are in
process of getting those declarations from all the vendors.
In reply to objection 2.7, it is submitted that Rule 89(2)(f) :
“The application under sub-rule (1) shall be accompanied by any of
the following documentary evidences in Annexure 1 in Form GST
RFD-01, as applicable, to establish that a refund is due to the appli-
cant, namely-
A declaration to the effect that the Special Economic Zone unit or
the Special Economic developer has not availed the input tax credit
of the tax paid by the supplier of goods or services made to a Spe-
cial Economic Zone unit or a Special Economic Zone developer.”
As per provisions described above, the provision for refund of utilized in-
put tax credit is made available only to those taxpayers who made supplies
to SEZ unit or the developer, against LUT. Further in Rule 89(2)(f) it has
been clearly prescribed that the refund application shall accompany a dec-
laration to the effect that the Special Economic Zone unit or the Special
Economic Zone developer has not availed the input tax credit of the tax
paid by the supplier of goods or services or both, in a case where the refund
is on account of supply of goods or services made to a Special Economic
Zone unit or a Special Economic Zone developer.”
Thus the facility of getting refund of tax paid is statutorily made available
to those tax payers who made supplies to SEZ only, with payment of tax.
This is to ensure that the refund of tax paid is claimed only by the suppliers
to SEZ, on filing of declarations from their [SEZ] purchasers, to avoid du-
plicity of the claims, as there may be a situation where the SEZ unit gets
supplies of goods/services from multiple number of Vendor taxpayers,
spread over different places, and it is not possible for the department to
track their refund claims, against the supplies made to such SEZ unit, with
payment of tax.
2.8 The appellant is eligible for the refund claimed, since they exported
the goods, outside the country and there is no bar to claim refund by the
SEZ unit. Further as per the GST Rules, it is obligatory for the suppliers of
SEZ unit to obtain declaration from the SEZ unit to the effect that the SEZ
unit has not claimed any ITC i.e., tax paid by them on supplies made to SEZ
unit. Thus, the department is well-positioned to check the duplicity of re-
fund claim.
In reply to objection 2.8, it is submitted that further in Rule 89(2)(f) it has
been clearly prescribed that the refund application shall accompany a dec-
laration to the effect that the Special Economic Zone unit or the Special
Economic Zone developer has not availed the input tax credit of the tax
paid by the supplier of goods or services or both, in a case where the refund
GST LAW TIMES  28th May 2020  106