Dictaminado por el Tribunal Superior de Sikkim
En el asunto de
SICPA India Private Limited contra la Unión de la India
(WP(C) N.º 54 de 2023)
La parte demandante se dedica a la fabricación de tintas y soluciones de seguridad. La demandante interrumpió sus operaciones comerciales durante el ejercicio fiscal 2019-20. Vendió toda la maquinaria y las instalaciones de fabricación, y realizó la correspondiente reversión del crédito fiscal (ITC) conforme a las disposiciones del GST. Tras el cierre del negocio, la demandante acumuló un saldo en el libro mayor de crédito electrónico de 4,38 millones de rupias indias. En consecuencia, presentó una solicitud de reembolso por dicho importe en virtud de la Sección 49(6) de la Ley. El Comisionado Adjunto rechazó la solicitud. La demandante presentó un recurso ante la Autoridad de Apelación, la cual confirmó la orden del Comisionado Adjunto, sosteniendo que, según una lectura combinada de la Sección 54(3) y la Sección 29 de la Ley, la normativa vigente no contempla el reembolso del ITC no utilizado en caso de interrupción o cierre de la actividad empresarial. Por ello, la demandante presentó un recurso ante el Tribunal Superior.
1. Brief Facts of the Case:
- M/s SICPA India Private Limited («la demandante») se dedica a la fabricación de tintas y soluciones de seguridad. La demandante cuenta con registro de GST en el estado de Sikkim.
- La demandante ha estado operativa desde el régimen anterior al GST. Sin embargo, en enero de 2019, interrumpió sus operaciones comerciales y vendió toda la maquinaria y las instalaciones de fabricación entre abril de 2019 y marzo de 2020.
- En el momento de la venta de los activos, la demandante revirtió adecuadamente el ITC según las disposiciones aplicables.
- Tras el cierre del negocio, la demandante mantenía un saldo acumulado en el libro mayor de crédito electrónico de 4,38 millones de rupias indias.
- Por lo tanto, la demandante solicitó el reembolso de dicho saldo de ITC no utilizado, conforme a la Sección 49(6) de la Ley CGST de 2017.
- Sin embargo, la parte demandada rechazó la solicitud de reembolso mediante orden de fecha 08.02.2022.
- La demandante presentó un recurso ante el Comisionado Adjunto de CGST y Aduanas Centrales, Apelaciones.
- La Autoridad de Apelación confirmó la orden del Comisionado Adjunto basándose en que, de una lectura combinada de las Secciones 54(3) y 29 de la Ley, resulta evidente que la normativa actual no prevé el reembolso del ITC no utilizado en caso de interrupción o cierre de la actividad empresarial.
- La Sección 54(3) se limita a las circunstancias en las que se permite el reembolso del ITC no utilizado, y la interrupción o el cierre del negocio no se encuentra entre ellas.
- En consecuencia, las peticiones presentadas buscan anular, eliminar y dejar sin efecto la orden que rechaza el reembolso del ITC no utilizado tras el cierre del negocio. Asimismo, se solicita establecer que la disposición de la Sección 54(3) de la Ley no es aplicable al reembolso del saldo no utilizado de ITC bajo la Sección 49(6) de la Ley CGST.
2. Cuestión ante el Tribunal Superior de Sikkim
La cuestión ante el Tribunal Superior es si el reembolso del ITC en virtud de la Sección 49(6) de la Ley CGST se limita únicamente a las empresas contempladas en la Sección 54(3) de la Ley CGST, o si toda empresa registrada tiene derecho al reembolso del ITC en caso de interrupción de la actividad empresarial.
3. Relevant Legal Extract
Las disposiciones pertinentes de la Ley se reiteran a continuación para su fácil consulta:
a. Sección 49(6) de la Ley:
«49. Pago de impuestos, intereses, multas y otros importes.—
……………………………………………….............
(6) El saldo en el libro mayor de efectivo electrónico o en el libro mayor de crédito electrónico, tras el pago de impuestos, intereses, multas, tasas o cualquier otro importe pagadero en virtud de esta Ley o de las normas dictadas al amparo de la misma, podrá ser reembolsado conforme a las disposiciones de la sección 54.
…………………………………………………………………………………””
b. Section 54(3) of the Act:
Hon’ble High Court placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of The Union of India vs. Slovak India Trading Company Private Limited ( MANU/KA/ 0709/2006) wherein the company applied for a refund for unutilized input credit which was available at the time of closure of the unit. The CESTAT allowed the refund, stating that it cannot be rejected on the closure of the company. The High Court agreed and opined that there is no express prohibition in Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002. Similarly, in the given case, there is no express prohibition in Section 49(6) read with Section 54 and 54(3) of the CGST Act, for claiming a refund of ITC on closure of a unit. Although Section 54(3) of the CGST Act deals only with two circumstances where refunds can be made, the statute also does not provide for retention of tax without the authority of law. Consequently, the Petitioners are entitled to the refund of unutilized ITC claimed by them.
…
Read Also: GSTN Issued Advisory and Process of Filing of Form GST SLP-02 for Claiming Waiver Under Section 128A
(3) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (10), a registered person may claim a refund of any unutilized input tax credit at the end of any tax period:
Provided that no refund of unutilized input tax credit shall be allowed in cases other than—
(i) zero-rated supplies made without payment of tax;
(ii) where the credit has accumulated on account of the rate of tax on inputs being higher than the rate of tax on output supplies (other than nil-rated or fully exempt supplies), except supplies of goods or services or both as may be notified by the Government on the recommendations of the Council:
Provided further that no refund of unutilized input tax credit shall be allowed in cases where the goods exported out of India are subjected to export duty:
Provided also that no refund of input tax credit shall be allowed, if the supplier of goods or services or both avails of drawback in respect of central tax or claims refund of the integrated tax paid on such supplies.”
4. Contention of the Petitioner
El Peticionario sostuvo que:
- Section 49(6) of the Act provides for a refund of the balance in the Electronic Cash Ledger and the Electronic Credit Ledger after payment of tax under the provisions of Section 54 of the Act.
- Section 54(3) of the CGST Act is the exception carved out in the provision, which requires that a registered company may claim refund of unutilized ITC at the end of any tax period, provided that, no refund of unutilized ITC shall be allowed except as provided in Section 54(3)(i) and (ii) of the CGST Act.
- However, such an exemption cannot take away the vested right of ITC accrued to the Petitioners and refund thereof under Section 49(6) of the CGST Act.
- The Appellate Authority has failed to discuss why the provisions of Section 49(6) are not applicable in the Petitioners' case.
5. Contention of the Respondent
The Respondent Contended that:
- Closure of business is not recognized under the statute as an eligible ground for refund, and Section 49(6) of the CGST Act does not independently provide for refund but is dependent on the conditions stipulated under Section 54 of the CGST Act.
- Further, Section 29(5) of the CGST Act provides for the reversal of ITC upon cancellation of registration, but not a refund.
- Also, the petitioner has an effective alternative statutory remedy under Section 112 of the CGST Act, which has not been exhausted by the petitioner.
- Consequently, the Petition deserves a dismissal.
6. Findings and Analysis by the Hon’ble High Court
Hon’ble High Court held that:
a. Non-exhaustion of statutory remedy:
- The argument pertaining to non-exhaustion of statutory remedy is taken up.
- In the Matter of the State of U.P. and Others vs. M/s. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd., the Supreme Court observed that there is no rule of law that the High Court should not entertain a Writ Petition where an alternative remedy is available to a party.
- It is always a matter of discretion with the Court, and if the discretion has been exercised by the High Court not unreasonably or perversely, it is the settled practice of the Supreme Court not to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the High Court.
- The exercise of plenary powers by this Court, as well as the exercise of discretion, in no manner is limited.
b. Analysis of the matter under discussion:
- Section 49 of the CGST lays down the method of payment of tax, interest, penalty, and other amounts.
- Section 49(6) of the Act provides that a refund of the balance after payment of tax, interest, penalty, fee, etc., will be made under the provisions of Section 54 of the Act.
- The Appellate forum was of the view that Section 54(3) of the CGST Act applied only to the two circumstances mentioned in the said Section and would not extend to the refund of unutilized input tax on account of closure of the business.
- The Union of India vs. Slovak India Trading Company Private Limited ( MANU/KA/0709/2006)
- On this facet, reference is made to the decision in Slovak India Trading Company Private Limited, where the High Court of Karnataka, at Bangalore, considered Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, which deals with Refund of CENVAT Credit.
- In such a case, the company had applied for a refund for unutilized input credit, which was available at the time of closure of the unit.
- The CESTAT allowed the refund, stating inter alia that it cannot be rejected on closure of the company. The High Court agreed and opined that there is no express prohibition in Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002.
- Similarly, in the given case, there is no express prohibition in Section 49(6) read with Section 54 and 54(3) of the CGST Act, for claiming a refund of ITC on closure of the unit.
- Although Section 54(3) of the CGST Act deals only with two circumstances where refunds can be made, the statute also does not provide for retention of tax without the authority of law.
- Consequently, the Petitioners are entitled to the refund of unutilized ITC claimed by them.
7. Final order
Hon’ble High Court of Sikkim held that the Petitioners are entitled to the refund of unutilized ITC claimed by them. The impugned Order dated 22-03-2023 of the Appellate Authority is set aside.
