Refund Cannot Be Denied for Non-mention of Services in GST Registration

Case Details:

• Case Name: M/s. Alstom Transport India Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Central Tax Appeals & Others

• Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh

• Petition Numbers: W.P. Nos. 21164 & 21179 of 2021

• Category of Dispute: Refund of Input Tax Credit on Export of Services

• Date of Judgment: 21.04.2025

• Relevant Sections:

  • Section 16, IGST Act, 2017

  • Sections 22, 24, 25, 54, 2(94), 2(108), CGST Act, 2017

  • Rule 8, Rule 10, Rule 19, CGST Rules, 2017

Facts of the Case (Paras 3–6)

• The petitioner, M/s. Alstom Transport India Ltd., is engaged in manufacture of railway equipment and export of engineering services for Metro projects.

• Initially registered under CGST for supply of goods, it later applied for amendment of registration (Aug 2020) to include services, which was approved in Sep 2020.

• It exported engineering services to foreign clients on payment of IGST between June 2019–June 2020.

• Refund claims of ₹27.04 crore (June 2019–Feb 2020) and ₹12.82 crore (Mar–June 2020) were filed (Paras 4–5).

• Both refund claims were rejected on the ground that the petitioner was registered only for goods during the relevant period (Para 6).

• Appeals were also dismissed by the Appellate Authority (Para 5).

Questions in Consideration (Paras 6–9)

1. Can refund of IGST paid on export of services be denied if GST registration certificate initially mentioned only goods and not services?

2. Does the law require separate registration for supply of goods and services under CGST Act?

3. Whether amendment of registration to include services has retrospective effect for refund claims filed earlier?

Observations of the Court (Paras 10–25)

• Section 16 of IGST Act allows refund of taxes for zero-rated supply (export of goods/services). Section 54(3) CGST Act allows refund of unutilized ITC for registered persons (Paras 10–13).

• “Registered person” (Sec. 2(94)) means a person registered under Section 25; there is no requirement of separate registration for goods and services (Paras 14–17).

• Registration procedure (Sec. 25 CGST Act & Rules 8, 10, 19) and forms (GST REG-01, REG-06) show only one registration per State; details of goods/services are incidental (Paras 18–22).

• Denial of refund merely because services were not initially mentioned in registration is unjustified. Example: Only top 5 services are required in REG-01; refund cannot be denied if 6th service is not mentioned (Para 23).

• Registration certificate is for the person, not for each supply type. Non-mention of services does not preclude refund (Paras 24–25).

Judgment of the Court (Para 26)

• Writ petitions allowed.

• Orders rejecting refund and appellate orders are set aside.

• Authorities directed to process and refund ITC claimed by petitioner after verification of quantum.

Between Fine Lines (Simple Summary in 5 points):

1. GST law provides only one registration per taxpayer; no need for separate registration for goods and services.

2. Refund cannot be denied simply because services were not listed in registration details.

3. Export of services is zero-rated, and refund of ITC is allowed if the person is registered.

4. The Court held that mentioning specific services in GST registration is not mandatory.

5. Authorities were directed to refund the petitioner’s claim after due verification.

Summary of Referred Cases

(No specific external case laws were referred; Court relied on statutory interpretation.)

Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”