Prabha Electronics Keeps ₹44.15 Lakh GST Refund For Goods Exported After Claim Period, With Invoices Issued During It

Prabha Electronics claimed a refund of ₹44,76,900 for accumulated ITC on zero-rated exports for June–September 2020.

The refund sanctioning authority sanctioned ₹44,14,988 and rejected the balance.

The Department challenged the refund, arguing that three shipping bills dated 2–4 October 2020, with an FOB value of ₹1.16 crore, fell outside the relevant period and should be excluded from the zero-rated turnover. It contended that the maximum admissible refund was ₹25,74,907. The Appellate Authority rejected the Department’s appeal and upheld the refund; the Department then appealed to the Tribunal

The Tribunal noted that the cause title should identify the Commissioner—not the officer who filed the appeal—as the Department’s appellant

Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017, read with Rule 89(4) of the CGST Rules, provides for refund of unutilised ITC on zero-rated supplies, calculated by reference to net ITC, turnover of zero-rated supply and adjusted total turnover for the relevant period

“Zero-rated supply” is defined by Section 16 of the IGST Act, 2017, and “export of goods” by Section 2(5) of that Act

Sections 12 and 31 of the CGST Act govern the time of supply and require an invoice for goods involving movement to be issued before or at removal

Applying these provisions, the Tribunal relied on *Shruti Bansal v. Solitaire Pharmacia Pvt. Ltd.*, Appeal No. APL/1/CHD/2026, reported at 2026 (9) TMI 2054, which held that goods invoiced during the relevant period may be included in zero-rated turnover even if exported later, provided actual export is established

The Tribunal treated the dispute as one concerning the period in which the relevant invoices should be counted, rather than whether the goods were ultimately exported.

It adopted the reasoning in *Shruti Bansal*: turnover for the relevant period is determined by reference to invoices issued for supplies in that period, and Rule 89(4) does not require the goods to have physically left India within the same period.

The Tribunal found that the invoices relating to the three disputed shipping bills were prepared during the refund period and that the goods had in fact been exported.

Accordingly, the later export dates did not justify excluding their value from zero-rated turnover or denying the corresponding refund

It upheld the Appellate Authority’s order allowing the refund, while directing that the cause title be read as “Commissioner of CGST, Chandigarh vs. Prabha Electronics Pvt. Ltd.”