9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 648 - AT - Service TaxRefund of unutilized CENVAT credit of service tax - rejection of claim on the ground that the appellant had failed to submit proof of having debited the amount of refund being claimed in his Cenvat credit account, as per the provisions of Para 2(h) of Notification No.27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.6.2012 read with Section 142(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - The appellant have reversed the CENVAT credit in their CENVAT credit account but the same was not shown in the ST-3 Returns because by the time refund was filed, GST has been introduced and filing of ST-3 returns itself was done away with. Further, the appellant has voluntarily debited the refund amount in GSTR-3B during May 2018 which clearly complies with the conditions of the Notification. Further, the Board has also clarified the said position in its Circular No.58/32/2018-GST. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues involved:
Refund claim rejection based on procedural lapses under GST regime. Analysis: The appellant, a service provider registered under 'Structural Design and Detailing consultancy Services,' filed a refund claim for unutilized CENVAT credit of service tax. The claim was rejected by the original adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (A) based on the appellant's failure to submit proof of debiting the refund amount in the CENVAT credit account. The appellant argued that the rejection was improper as the refund amount was debited in the books of accounts and in the GSTR-3B Return. They contended that the procedural lapses were a result of the introduction of GST and should not deny their substantive right to the refund. Citing relevant case laws, the appellant emphasized that the conditions of the Notification were met when the refund amount was debited. The learned counsel for the appellant highlighted that the reversal of credit in GSTR-3B amounted to non-availment of credit as per CBIC Circular No.58/32/2018-GST. The learned AR defended the impugned order, asserting that the appellant had not shown the reversal of CENVAT credit in the ST-3 Returns due to the introduction of GST, which eliminated the requirement for such filings. However, the appellant voluntarily debited the refund amount in the GSTR-3B, complying with the conditions of the Notification. The AR's argument was countered by the appellant's submission that the conditions were fulfilled on the date of debiting the CENVAT account, entitling them to the refund. After considering the submissions and examining the material on record, the Tribunal found that the appellant had complied with the conditions of the Notification by debiting the refund amount in the GSTR-3B. Referring to a similar case precedent where the Tribunal allowed the appeal on identical facts, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was unsustainable in law. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order, allowing the appeal of the appellant with any consequential relief. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the rejection of the refund claim based on procedural lapses under the GST regime was unjustified. The appellant's compliance with the conditions of the Notification by debiting the refund amount in the GSTR-3B was deemed sufficient to entitle them to the refund, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.
|
