sekarreporter1: https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1728658026130034848?t=TYR-38C6r4mg6WiSWt6wLg&s=08 [11/26, 11:43] sekarreporter1: ” Tamil Nadu Madras High Court flags ‘serious flaw’, gives Lenovo GST refund The Judge said the officer, who is processing the refund, should be concerned only about the aspect of whether the goods have reached the SEZ zone and whether tax for such entry was remitted or not. 

[11/26, 11:43] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1728658026130034848?t=TYR-38C6r4mg6WiSWt6wLg&s=08
[11/26, 11:43] sekarreporter1: ”

Madras High Court flags ‘serious flaw’, gives Lenovo GST refund
The Judge said the officer, who is processing the refund, should be concerned only about the aspect of whether the goods have reached the SEZ zone and whether tax for such entry was remitted or not. 

CHENNAI: Expressing disapproval of the order passed by the officials of Goods and Services Tax (GST) and Central Excise, partially denying GST refunds to Lenova (India) Private Limited for goods and services provided to special economic zones (SEZs), the said the officials have committed a ‘serious flaw’ in decision making and ordered disbursal of the refund amount within 30 days.

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, in a recent order, rejected the contentions of the GST officials for partial denial of the tax refund on the grounds of inordinate delay in obtaining endorsements from the authorised officer of the SEZs, non-filing of documents at the time of filing application but only at the personal hearing and mismatch in certain supporting documents.

The computer manufacturer had sought a refund for the tax paid for the months of December 2019 and January and February 2020. As per section 16 of the Integrated GST Act 2017, exports and supply of goods or services or both to SEZ units/developers tax need not be paid as this is considered ‘zero-rated supplies’.

The claims were made under section 16 (3) (b) of IGST Act for a total amount of Rs 7.85 crore. However, the assistant commissioner of GST and Central Excise issued orders denying in part the refunds. The order was confirmed by the joint commissioner for appeals. Challenging his order, the company filed the petition in the high court.

ADVERTISEMENT

Referring to the delay in submitting supporting documents, the judge reasoned in the order, “Once the assessee had paid the tax and the goods have entered the SEZ and obtained endorsement to that effect and furnished it to the purpose of refund, a refund cannot be denied for any reason whatsoever.”

He said the officer, who is processing the refund, should be concerned only about the aspect of whether the goods have reached the SEZ zone and whether tax for such entry was remitted or not. The judge held that under section 54 (1) of the CGST Act, the limitation period is two years and the petitioner has filed the application within this period.

Allowing the petition of Lenova, the judge said, “This court is of the view that the officers have committed a serious flaw in decision-making process and therefore the impugned orders have to be held unsustainable. Accordingly, the orders are set aside.”

Judge’s take

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy said the officer processing the refund, should be concerned only about the aspect as to whether the goods have reached the SEZ zone and whether tax for such entry was remitted or not
”