Glen Industries Private Limited & Anr. Vs Deputy Director Directorate General of GST
Intelligence & Ors (Calcutta High Court)
As CAs, we navigate the ever-evolving landscape of GST laws, and sometimes, a seemingly minor change can have significant repercussions. A recent High Court judgment has brought the implications of “omitted” rules sharply into focus, particularly concerning Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017, and its impact on GST refunds.
This ruling underscore a critical principle: the distinct legal effect of an “omission” versus an “amendment” or “substitution” of a statutory provision. Let’s delve into the details.
Understanding Rule 96(10)
Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017, was a crucial provision governing the eligibility for refund of Integrated Tax (IGST) paid on the export of goods or services. Essentially, it laid down conditions that exporters had to meet to claim this automatic refund. These conditions primarily related to whether the exporter had availed certain benefits or exemptions on their inward supplies.
If an exporter received supplies on which they availed benefits under specific notifications (e.g., Notification No. 48/2017-Central Tax, 40/2017-Central Tax (Rate), 41/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate), 78/2017-Customs, or 79/2017-Customs), they were generally restricted from claiming the IGST refund on exports under Rule 96(10). The intent was to prevent a double benefit.
