For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on GST
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our GST Library

Petitioner has made supplies for export to BHEL under the terms of notification No. 41/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 23rd October, 2017 which grants exemption to inter-State supply of taxable goods by a registered supplier to a registered recipient for export as is in excess of the amount calculated at the rate of 0.1% subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. BHEL couldn’t make the export within the time limit of 90 days as required in said exemption notification. Petitioner argued that because of delay in export by the BHEL petitioner is being made liable to pay the differential tax though all the compliances were required to be made by BHEL. BHEL surprisingly denied to compensate the petitioner with the additional IGST liability. Notice issued accordingly.

Supplies under notification No. 41/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 23rd October, 2017 –Non fulfillment of conditions - The petitioner has made supplies for export to respondent No.1 under notification No. 41/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 23rd October, 2017 at the rate of 0.1%. The Respondent No.1 couldn’t make the export within the time limit of 90 days as required under the Exemption notification. The GST along with Cess (as applicable) legally leviabale and payable by successful i.e. by the BHEL. The Petitioner corresponded with the Commissioner CGST with a request for extension of time limit for making exports by BHEL. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that para 5.1 of Circular No. 37/11/2018-GST dated 15.03.2018 indicates that in such cases, the Jurisdictional Commissioner may consider granting extension of time limit for export as provided in the said sub-rule on post facto basis keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case. However, petitioner was asked to pay the differential tax for the supplies made in the respective years 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21. The Respondent department instead of making the respondent No.1 recipient liable for the payment of the additional IGST has instead raised the demand against the petitioner.

Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court issued notice to the respondent No.1 and listed the matter for 31st March, 2022. In the meantime no further coercive steps be taken against the petitioner.

Petitioner has made supplies for export to BHEL under the terms of notification No. 41/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 23rd October, 2017 which grants exemption to inter-State supply of taxable goods by a registered supplier to a registered recipient for export as is in excess of the amount calculated at the rate of 0.1% subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. BHEL couldn’t make the export within the time limit of 90 days as required in said exemption notification. Petitioner argued that because of delay in export by the BHEL petitioner is being made liable to pay the differential tax though all the compliances were required to be made by BHEL. BHEL surprisingly denied to compensate the petitioner with the additional IGST liability. Notice issued accordingly.

Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court issued notice to the respondent No.1 and listed the matter for 31st March, 2022. In the meantime no further coercive steps be taken against the petitioner.