SEZ Refund Rejected for Unreported Supplies Remanded for Invoice-Wise Reconciliation: GSTAT Kolkata

The Kolkata Bench of the GST Appellate Tribunal faulted an exporter for omitting SEZ supplies from its returns, but gave it four weeks to prove a ₹9,06,045 refund claim with documents.

GSTAT Kolkata has held that the refund formula in Rule 89(4) of the CGST Rules requires zero-rated supplies to be correctly reported in GSTR‑3B and broken up in GSTR‑1, but remanded a refund claim rejected for that reason so that the disputed facts can be reconciled. [Subhajit Leather Works v. Kamal Puggal, Joint Commissioner CGST & Cx, 2026-juristway.com-3317-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST]

Satya Gopal Chattopadhyay, Member (Judicial), and Anindya Mitra, Member (Technical), decided the appeal, with Anindya Mitra writing the order. The Kolkata business had claimed refund of ₹9,06,045 for April 2021 to March 2022 on supplies to SEZ units without payment of tax, declaring zero-rated turnover of ₹1,40,95,971.65.

The proper officer found no SEZ supplies reported in GSTR‑1 and treated the zero-rated turnover as nil. The first appellate authority upheld the rejection, noting that the appellant had reported the turnover as exports, that its statements were inconsistent, and that it had filed none of the documents required by Rule 89(2). The Department argued that matching aggregate turnover cannot substitute for verifying each supply.

The Bench noted that Table 6B of GSTR‑1 and Serial No. 5(B) of GSTR‑9 call for SEZ supplies, and found the appellant grossly negligent in omitting them from both. However, the appellant claimed to hold invoices, SEZ endorsements and Bills of Export, while the appellate authority recorded that none had been filed, so the case involved disputed questions of fact and required reconciliation.

The order-in-appeal was set aside and the claim remanded. Within four weeks of communication of the order, the appellant must file an invoice-wise reconciliation across GSTR‑1, GSTR‑3B, RFD-01 and GSTR‑9, copies of invoices and shipping bills, the specified officer’s endorsements and the Letter of Undertaking. The proper officer is to hear the appellant and pass a speaking order under Rule 92 within four weeks of the hearing, and may call for other documents.

2026-juristway.com-3317-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST