Deemed-Export Refund Limitation Runs Supply-Wise, Not From Period Entered in Form: GSTAT Pune

The GST Appellate Tribunal’s Pune Bench granted a supplier’s refund on deemed exports to an EOU, rejecting an unsupported finding that the recipient had also claimed refund on the same supplies.

The GST Appellate Tribunal, Pune, has held that limitation for a deemed-export refund under Section 54(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 is tested for each supply from the date of the related return, not from the start of the period entered in the application. The Bench of Shridhar Mahadeo Bhosale, Member (Judicial), and Dr. Nirmal Kumar Soren, Member (Technical), who wrote the order, allowed the supplier’s appeal for refund of ₹77,188 [Propix Technologies Private Limited v. Commissioner of State Tax, Maharashtra, 2026-juristway.com-3264-GSTAT(Pune)-GST].

The appellant made five supplies between 22 Dec 2023 and 11 May 2024 to Wockhardt Ltd., an Export Oriented Unit, and applied on 8 Jan 2025 for refund of the tax paid. Because the period entered began in April 2022, the proper officer rejected the claim as spanning three financial years, time-barred and unsupported by the recipient’s Form A under Circular No. 14/14/2017-GST.

The first appellate authority accepted that the claim was in time but upheld the rejection on a new ground, that both the recipient and the supplier had filed refund applications in breach of Rule 89(1). Before the Tribunal, the Department argued that a refund application is a single, indivisible claim whose limitation must be tested on the entire period entered.

The Bench held that bunching across financial years is permitted by paragraph 2.5 of Circular No. 135/05/2020-GST, and that under Explanation (2)(b) to Section 54 the relevant date is the date of the return for each deemed-export supply. As no return for these supplies could have been filed before 1 Jan 2024, the application was in time, and entering an earlier period brought no earlier supply into the claim. It also found that Form A dated 14 Dec 2023 had reached the officers before the first supply.

Under the second proviso to Rule 89(1), the refund may be claimed by the recipient or by the supplier, but not both. The recipient’s Form B returns carried undertakings that it had not availed ITC and would not claim refund, and its declaration of 12 Dec 2025 confirmed this. As the appellate order identified no refund application by the recipient, the Bench held that its finding could not be sustained.

Both lower orders were set aside and the refund determined at ₹77,188. The proper officer must grant it with interest, if any, admissible under Section 56.

2026-juristway.com-3264-GSTAT(Pune)-GST