GST paid on cancelled airline tickets can be claimed as a refund if the airline has returned both the fare and GST to the passengers and has supporting documents to prove it, a GST Appellate Tribunal has ruled.
Ruling in the case of Singapore Airlines Ltd. v/s Kochi Commissioner of CGST & CE, Kochi, Ernakulam bench of GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has decided that there is “sufficient evidence” to ensure that the refund of cancelled tickets has reached the respective passengers directly and there is “no passing” of the incidence of tax.
The GSTAT directed the revenue department to process the refund claim of the airline within two weeks and make payment along with interest.
The case relates to eight GST refund claims totalling ₹45,92,528 by Singapore Airlines for the period between October 2019 and March 2021. During the period, owing to COVID-19, the airline had to cancel flights and returned fares and GST to passengers. However, it could not adjust the credit notes against output tax.
The GST Joint Commissioner had earlier rejected the refund claims, following which the appellant approached the GSTAT.
Setting aside the JC(A) order, the GSTAT in its order dated October 16 said, “The appellant airline is eligible for the refund of GST collected from the passengers and paid by them to the GST department, but subsequently refunded the entire amount of fare, including GST, to the passengers, on account of cancellation of the flights due to the COVID-19 pandemic in terms of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order.”
The GSTAT also concluded that the appellant has provided sufficient evidence to ensure that the refund of the cancelled tickets have reached the respective passenger directly and there is no passing of the incidence of tax.
Rahul Shekhar, Partner- Indirect Tax at Nangia Global, said the ruling is a positive development for the industry, as GST should not become a cost where a transaction is cancelled, and the tax collected is fully refunded to customers.
“It highlights the need for field formations to consider all supporting documents collectively rather than reject genuine refund claims on technical grounds. However, taxpayers must maintain robust documentation to satisfy the test of unjust enrichment for refund,” Shekhar said.
AMRG Global Managing Partner Rajat Mohan said that the Tribunal had allowed a refund as ‘excess payment of tax’ in a case where a business has repaid customers but has no outward liability left to absorb the credit note, and the tax stays with the government.
“What decided the case was evidence. Passenger-level records linking invoice, credit note and refund, with settlement data, showed no tax was retained, so there was no unjust enrichment. Taxpayers unable to build that trail, especially for agent-sold tickets, should not assume the same outcome,” Mohan added.
