9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 808 - Commissioner - GSTRefund claim - rejection on the ground of time limitation - refund has been filed after Two years from the date of supply of the goods to SEZ unit - sub-section (1) of Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017 - zero rated supply or not - violation of principles of natural justice or not - HELD THAT - As per Section 16 of IGST Act, 2017, it is amply clear that the supply made to SEZ shall be treated as a zero rated supply accordingly, for filing of refund in this case the relevant date would be taken as per clause (a) of explanation 2 (2) of sub section (14) of Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017 - the relevant date in the instant case for calculating relevant date for filing of refund claim shall be 26.07.2017. The appellant's contention that the relevant date shall be taken from the date of payment of tax i.e. 19.10.2018 as specific provisions for relevant date in case of zero rated supply has been provided in the CGST Act, cannot be agreed upon. Violation of principles of natural justice - allegation is that adjudicating authority has failed to pass a speaking order as he did not bring on surface the sufficient basis for the rejection of the refund claim - HELD THAT - The adjudicating authority/proper officer while issuing the SCN dated 29.10.2020 as well as in the order dated 17.11.2020 he has properly mentioned/elaborated the reason for rejection of refund claim. Therefore, it may not be justify to say that the adjudicating authority/proper officer has not been passed the speaking order - there are no force in the contention of the appellant in this regard also. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the refund claim is time-barred as per the provisions of Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017. 2. Whether the principle of natural justice has been followed in the instant case. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the refund claim is time-barred as per the provisions of Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017: The appellant filed a refund claim under Section 54 (3) (i) of the CGST Act, 2017 for supplies to SEZ on payment of IGST. The adjudicating authority issued a show cause notice stating that the refund claim was time-barred as it was filed after two years from the date of supply of goods to the SEZ unit (25.07.2017). The appellant argued that the tax on the SEZ supply was paid on 19.10.2018 when the GSTR-3B for September 2018 was filed, and thus the two-year limitation period should start from this date. The adjudicating authority, however, contended that the relevant date for calculating the limitation period should be the date of supply of goods to the SEZ unit (26.07.2017), making the refund claim time-barred. The appellate authority agreed with this interpretation, stating that the relevant date for zero-rated supply should be taken as per clause (a) of explanation 2 (2) of sub-section (14) of Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017, which in this case is 26.07.2017. Therefore, the refund claim filed on 17.10.2020 was beyond the permissible period and thus time-barred. 2. Whether the principle of natural justice has been followed in the instant case: The appellant contended that the adjudicating authority failed to pass a speaking order and did not provide sufficient basis for rejecting the refund claim, thereby violating the principle of natural justice. The appellant cited judgments from JAY JAY MILLS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. Vs. STATE TAX OFFICER, TIRUPUR, and IPC PACKAGING COMPANY PVT. LTD. Vs. ADDL. C.C., ICD, BANGALORE to support this contention. The appellate authority examined the show cause notice dated 29.10.2020 and the order dated 17.11.2020 and found that the adjudicating authority had properly mentioned and elaborated the reasons for rejecting the refund claim. Consequently, the appellate authority concluded that the principle of natural justice had been followed, and the cited judgments were not applicable to the instant case. Conclusion: The appellate authority upheld the adjudicating authority's decision, finding no infirmity in rejecting the refund claim. The appeal filed by the appellant was thus rejected, and the order was disposed of accordingly.
|
