Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : ESL Steel Limited Vs Bharat Heavy Electronic Limited (Jharkhand High Court)
Appeal Number : W.P.(T).No. 5430 of 2021
Date of Judgement/Order : 23/02/2022
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

ESL Steel Limited Vs Bharat Heavy Electronic Limited (Jharkhand High Court)

The Petitioner made supplies for export to Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd (BHEL). The goods were ultimately exported, albeit with delay. Petitioner and BHEl made representations to the Revenue for condonation of delay in exports. Reliance was placed on Para 5.1 of Circular No. 37/11/2018-GST dated 15.03.2018. However, to no avail. Revenue proceeded for recovery against the petitioner. BHEL refused to reimburse GST to the petitioner. Revenue claimed the prayers of the petitioner are against BHEL and not the department. However, the high court granted stay of recovery of the balance amounts. The High court noted as per terms and conditions of the tender and purchase order, GST is payable by BHEL. However, recovery has been made from the Petitioner and BHEL rejected to indemnify the Petitioner for the payments made.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

Petitioner has made supplies for export to respondent No.1- BHEL. The notification No. 41/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 23rd October, 2017 issued by the Department of Revenue Ministry of Finance Government of India 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 fulfilment of the laid down conditions therein Annxure-4. Respondent No.1 couldn’t make the export within the time limit of 90 days as required under sub clause (II) of the Exemption notification. Under the terms of tender Annexure-1 Clause 14.1.2, GST along with Cess (as applicable) legally leviabale and payable by successful supplier as per GST law shall be paid by BHEL, extra. Hence, supplier shall not include GST along with Cess (as applicable) in their quoted rates/ price. Supplier, however was under an obligation to ensure that the reduced/ concessional rate of GST as applicable for penultimate exporter vide notification No. 41/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 23rd October, 2017 or similar Notification issued by the 2 State /Union Territory GST authority is levied along with all necessary compliances. As per one of the purchase order at page 144 all inclusive total F.O.B. Port Price included all taxes and duties excluding GST. GST along with CESS (as applicable) legally leviable & payable by successful bidder as per GST Law, shall be paid by BHEL. Petitioner supplier corresponded with the Commissioner North CGST & Central Excise Commissionerate, Kolkata (Annexure-11) with a request for extension of time limit for making exports by BHEL during the period February 2019 to April 2020 and specifically referred to para 5.1 of Circular No. 37/11/2018-GST dated 15.03.2018 as per which if in cases the export have been made but not within 3 months, from the date of issue of the invoice for export, payment of Integrated Tax first and claiming refund at a subsequent date should not be insisted upon.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the aforesaid background facts pleaded from the records submitted that clause 5.1 of the circular 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. The same principle should be followed in cases of export of services. According to the petitioner his representation remain un-responded. Such a request was also made by the recipient BHEL vide Annexure-10 on 19th August, 2021 citing delay in exports due to implementation of EDI system for the first time in riverine route in the month of June, 2019. It caused consequential cascading delays which were lined up serially to the other barges. However, petitioner was asked to pay the tax amount amounting to Rs. 9,41,49,267.71 as differential tax liable to be paid for the supplies made in the respective years 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 (Annexure12). Petitioner was also asked to produce certain documents by summons dated 12th August, 2014 (Annexures- 13, 14 and 16). Similar notice for non-payment of tax amounting to Rs. 3,85,00 322/- for the same periods with the details of invoices were issued on 17th September, 2021 followed by the letter dated 29th September, 2021 asking the petitioner to pay the differential 3 amount of tax Rs.13,26,49,589/- and submit copy of the DRC-03 for the same. Petitioner was also asked to submit copies of proof of exports/Shipping bills of remaining invoices as communicated vide letter No. 5717 dated 17th September 2021 urgently for calculation of tax liability, if any, along with reconciliation statement of ITC.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031