This appeal has been filed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 by M/s Adventage Agency Private Limited, 2^nd Floor, 201-2021 Girnar Colony, Gandhi Path, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (hereinafter also referred to as “the appellant”)  against the Order in Original (hereinafter called as the “impugned order”) passed by the Joint Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax Division-G, Jaipur (hereinafter called as the “adjudication authority”) as mentioned below:-

2.  BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE :

2.1  The appellant having GSTIN No.08AABCA2414Q2ZL has filed application for refund claim of ₹ 2,12,814/- for the period of February-2018 under Section 54 of the Act on account of supplies made to SEZ unit/SEZ Developer with payment of tax. The refund claim rejected by the adjudicating authority on the ground that the appellant submitted the copies of invoices issued in the month of July-2017 and August-2017 but the ARN generated shows that the refund is claimed for the month of February-2018

2.2  Further, the invoices submitted by the appellant are issued in the month of July 2017 and August-2017 but in the table 3.1(b) of GSTR-3B return for the month of July 2017 & August-2017 outward taxable supplies (Zero rated) is shown as “NIL” . Appellant informed that Zero rated supply was advertently shown in outward supplies under 3(1) (a) of GSTR-3B for the July month. Whereas, on perusal of GSTR 3B for the month of February-2018, revealed that appellant has shown taxable value of ₹ 16,72,580/- with IGST of ₹ 2,12,814/-  under 3.1(b) Outward taxable supplies (Zero rated).

2.3  Further, Tax invoice number RIL/PPS-06 and 007 show that commission amount pertains to the month of June 2017 (Pre GST era) on which Service Tax was payable and refund of IGST appeared inadmissible.

3.  Being aggrieved with the impugned order the appellant has filed the appeal on the following grounds which may be summarized as under:-

• that the appellant made SEZ supplies during July-2017 and August-2017 and declared the same correctly in their GSTR-1 filed for both the months.
• that these SEZ supplies were on payment of IGST and are eligible for refund from the GST department. IGST liability was discharged in GSTR 3B of July-2017 and August-2017.
• that appellant made a clerical mistake not showing the SEZ supplies separately in column 3.1(b) while filing GSTR 3B of July & August-2017 itself. Although the IGST liability is discharged by showing it in column 3.1(a) in the same month This was a typing mistake, with no intention to evade taxes.
• that there is no provision of revising the returns in GST regime. One can only make amendments while filing future returns to correctly discharge his tax liability. Guided by the GOI guidelines, appellant added the said SEZ supplies in GSTR-3B of February-2018 and refund application is filed for the said refund.
• that since July-2017 and August-2017 GSTR-3B were not having details in column 3.1 (b) refund for the said period was not uploading online. There was no system of offline refund
• that appellant being genuine bonafide dealer and made SEZ supplies and discharged IGST on it, which is also been considered by the learned adjudicating authority, is aggrieved by the order of rejection of refund due to the said technical software reason.

4.  Personal Hearing in the case was held on 20.02 2020. Shri Hemendra Choudhary, Chartered Accountant appeared on behalf of the appellant. He explained the case in details and reiterated the submissions made in their grounds of appeal. He also requested that he will submit additional documents and requested to decide the case at the earliest

5.  I have carefully gone through the case records and submissions made in the appeal memorandum as well as oral submission made at the time of personal hearing held on 20.02.2020

6.  I find in the instant case that the adjudicating authority has rejected the refund claim filed by the appellant and held that the appellant filed refund claim of ₹ 2, 12,814/- for the period of February-2018 under Section 54 of the Act on account of supplies made to SEZ unit/SEZ Developer with payment of tax. Whereas, virtually the supplies to SEZ Unit/SEZ Developer were made during the period July-2017 & August-2017. Moreover, the appellant has not shown the value / figure in column 3.1 (a) Outward taxable supply (Zero rated) of GSTR-3B for the relevant month. The “NIL”  amount was shown in column 3.1 (a) Outward taxable supply (Zero rated). The appellant ‘s contention is that due to typographic mistake it was inadvertently shown in column 3.1 (b) of GSTR-3B in the month of July-2017 instead of column 3.1 (a) Outward taxable supply (Zero rated) of GSTR-3B. Moreover, as per detail of Tax invoices number RIL/PPS-06 and PPS-07 shows Commissioner pertains to the month of June-2017 (pre GST regime) on which Service Tax was to be paid by the appellant.

7. I find Appellant’s contention is that due to typographic mistake it has inadvertently shown in column no. 3.1(a) Outward taxable supply (Zero rated) of GSTR-3B instead of column no. 3.1 (b) Outward taxable supply for the relevant month 

The Para 3 of Circular No.26/26/2017-GST dated 29.12 2017 reads as under.-

Wherein facility/opportunity for amendment/Corrections/ rectification of errors has been given while filing their FORM GSTR-3B. Further, in this regard circular No. 7/7/2017-GST dated 01st September 2017 was issued which clarified that errors committed while filing FORM GSTR-3B may be rectified while filing FORM GSTR-1 and FORM GSTR-2 of the same month. Further, in the said circular, it was clarified that the system will automatically reconcile. the data submitted in FORM GSTR 3B with FORM GSTR-1 and FORM GSTR-2, and the variations if any will either be offset against output tax liability or added to the output tax liability of the subsequent months of the registered person. As per the said circular issued by the CBIC, the appellant was require to avail this facility.

Moreover, as per tax invoice no. RIL/PPS-06 and 007 both dated 30 07.2017 shows that commission amount pertains to the month of June-2017 (pre GST era ) on which clearly Service Tax was to be paid by the appellant rather than appellant filed refund claim of IGST.

8. Thus, the submission of the appellant that the figures related to SEZ supplies made during the period July-2017 and August-2017 declared correctly in their GSTR-1 filed for July and August-2017 is not found correct and acceptable at this stage. The appellant should have rectified the mistake committed while filing GSTR-3B. Since the appellant has not taken the advantage of aforesaid circular by rectifying their mistake in filing the relevant return, their appeal can not be allowed.

9.  In view of the above legal provision and discussion and findings I find that the adjudicating authority has rightly rejected the claim. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.