Background: The petitioner, engaged in importing and selling coal, including to customers in Special Economic Zone (SEZ) areas, sought refunds of GST paid on coal purchased during February, March, May, and June 2019. The refund applications were rejected by the assessing authority, and subsequent appeals were also dismissed. The authorities based their rejection on the absence of documentary evidence showing movement of goods from Visakhapatnam to SEZ units and discrepancies in the e-way bills, which indicated dispatch from Nellore District to Visakhapatnam District without supporting tollgate receipts.
Arguments: The petitioner argued that GSTR-3B returns substantiated the sales and that the goods moved from Visakhapatnam Port to SEZ units, a route without tollgates, making certain documentation unavailable. The petitioner further contended that all documents required under Rule 89(2)(d)(e) for SEZ sales refunds were submitted, and the authorities’ failure to consider these documents violated principles of natural justice. The Government Pleader countered that the necessary certifications were not placed before the authorities and insisted that the petitioner must demonstrate the movement of goods as recorded in the e-way bills.
Court’s Reasoning: The Court observed that the petitioner never claimed movement of goods from Nellore to SEZ units, but rather from Visakhapatnam Port to SEZ units. While there was no material before the Court conclusively showing such movement, the absence of such evidence could not be equated with the absence of movement itself. The Court emphasized that Rule 89(2)(d)(e) was specifically incorporated to allow certification of supplies to SEZ units, which would be conclusive for refund purposes. The petitioner claimed to have submitted the required certification, while the authorities disputed this.
Legal Principle and Decision: The High Court clarified that certification under Rule 89(2)(d)(e) is conclusive for establishing sales to SEZ units for GST refund purposes. Given the dispute over whether the necessary certification was submitted, the Court found it appropriate to remand the matter to the assessing authority. The orders of rejection by both the assessing and appellate authorities were set aside. The assessing authority was directed to reconsider the refund applications after verifying the certificates produced by the petitioner under Rule 89(2)(d)(e).
Conclusion: The judgment reinforces the legal principle that proper certification under Rule 89(2)(d)(e) is determinative for GST refunds on SEZ sales. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration, ensuring that the petitioner’s claims are evaluated in light of the required documentation.
Case Reported at:
Case Name: Green Gold Global Resources LLP v. State of AP and Ors.
Case Citation: (2026) taxcode.in 762 HC
