2021 (8) TMI 386 - Commissioner - GST

Seeking refund of ITC on Export of Goods Services - period April, 2018 to March, 2019 - HELD THAT - The adjudicating authority/proper officer has sanctioned refund claim amounting to ₹ 5,94,924/- out of refund claim amounting to ₹ 6,02,713/- and rejected amounting to ₹ 7,789/- and accordingly pass the Order-in-Original vide reference No. ZZ0808200304019, dated 21-8-2020 in Form GST RFD-06 whereas, on disbursement of the sanctioned refund claim in lieu of ₹ 5,94,924/- only ₹ 4,73,792/- has been disbursed resulted into less receipt of payment of ₹ 1,21,132/-. The appellant has also enclosed copy of payment order Number ZY0808200314831, dated 22nd August, 2020 amounting to ₹ 4,73,792/- (RFD-05). In view of the comments received from the concerned jurisdictional officer as well as grounds taken by appellant in their appeal memo, it is found that the appellant has received less refund amounting to ₹ 1,21,132/-, therefore, the appellant is entitled to get the less receipt payment which has been occurred by the adjudicating authority due to some technical problem in system - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund application under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Disbursement of refund amount - Less payment received by the appellant - Appeal against the Order-in-Original - Technical problem leading to short disbursement.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a refund application for the period April 2018 to March 2019, amounting to ?6,02,713/- of ITC on Export of Goods & Services without payment of tax. The adjudicating authority sanctioned a refund claim of ?5,94,924/- out of the total claim, rejecting ?7,789/-. However, during disbursement, only ?4,73,792/- was disbursed, resulting in a shortfall of ?1,21,132/-. The appellant appealed against the Order-in-Original, claiming the refund amount was not disbursed as per the sanction order and highlighting the shortfall of ?1,21,132/-, along with interest. A virtual personal hearing was conducted where the Authorized Representative reiterated the appellant's written submission, emphasizing the discrepancy in the refund amount received. The appellant expressed no further grievances during the hearing.

Upon reviewing the facts and submissions, the Additional Commissioner noted the discrepancy in the disbursement of the refund amount. The adjudicating authority had sanctioned ?5,94,924/-, but only ?4,73,792/- was disbursed, leading to the appellant receiving ?1,21,132/- less than the sanctioned amount. The appellant provided a copy of the payment order to support their claim. Following this, the jurisdictional officer confirmed that a technical problem during the calculation and saving process resulted in the short disbursement of ?1,21,132/-. Considering the comments from the jurisdictional officer and the appellant's grounds for appeal, the Additional Commissioner concluded that the appellant was indeed entitled to the shortfall amount due to the technical issue in the system.

In light of the above findings, the Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, recognizing the shortfall in the refund amount received and attributing it to a technical problem in the system. Consequently, the appellant was deemed entitled to the less receipt payment of ?1,21,132/-, rectifying the discrepancy caused by the technical issue during the disbursement process.