2021 (8) TMI 680 - Commissioner - GST

Refund claim - input tax credit on purchase and fabrication of cash carry van - refund claimed by placing reliance upon the Hon'ble AAAR, Maharashtra in IN RE M/S. CMS INFO SYSTEMS LIMITED 2020 (6) TMI 643 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA in which AAAR ruled that the appellant is eligible to take the credit of tax paid on purchase of cash carry van or fabrication of the same - territorial jurisdiction for applicability of Advance Ruling - Time limitation for availing credit - HELD THAT - The appellant is also holding the GSTN registration in the state of Rajasthan and accordingly, they filed the said refund claim in the jurisdiction of CGST Division-C, Jaipur (Rajasthan) - the appellant is referring the ruling of Appellate Authority for Advance ruling, Maharastra for claiming the refund whereas, it is observed that said ruling is binding only on the applicant who had sought ruling and on the concerned officer or the jurisdictional officer in respect such/particular applicant. The appellant can not take credit on the basis of ruling of AAAR of Maharastra as it is out of jurisdiction of Rajasthan as it is not binding/applicable in the state of Rajasthan, consequently, solely in the said fact the appellant is not entitled to get the said refund claim. The appellant obviously misconceive the fact by filing the said refund claim in the jurisdiction of Rajasthan accordingly, I do not accede to the plea of the appellant. Further, the adjudicating authority findings is agreed upon that the said AAAR, although it is at all not binding on the jurisdictional authority, the said AAAR order does not talk about any refund of ITC hence it is not eligible to them. Thus, there is no place in the provision of law for refund of such kind of ITC hence, it may be concluded that the said refund claim of appellant is beyond the provisions of law, and is not covered up in any of the provisions of CGST Act/Rules made there under accordingly, it may not be permitted. Time limitation for availing credit - HELD THAT - Section 16 (4) of CGST Act, 2017 provides the time limit as well as manner of taking eligible credit. In the instant case, the appellant themselves admitted that since the time was expired/lapsed for taking credit as per the said provisions, that is why they filed the refund claim for the same - also, the AAAR, Maharastra ruling was not pertaining to a particular period of ITC rather the issue before the AAAR was whether, the appellant is entitled to avail ITC on purchase of cash carry van or its fabrication hence, it may not be completely/absolutely said that the said ITC was expired/lapsed due to the reason that issue was pending before AAR/AAAR, it can be said that if any ITC is expired or lapsed due to limitation of time, it may not in anyway refundable as it became dead ITC as per the said provisions of laws. Appeal rejected.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to Refund of Input Tax Credit (ITC)
2. Applicability of Advance Ruling
3. Provisions under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017
4. Time Limit for Taking ITC under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Refund of Input Tax Credit (ITC):
The appellant, M/s CMS Info Systems Ltd., engaged in providing cash management services, filed a refund application for ?6,90,400/- related to ITC on cash carry vans for the period 2018-2019. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim based on a ruling by the Hon'ble AAAR, Maharashtra, which allowed ITC for cash carry vans but did not address the refund of ITC. The appellant argued that they could not take the credit in the electronic ledger due to the pending issue before the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) and sought a refund based on the AAAR ruling dated 31.10.2019. They contended that the refund claim was within two years from the relevant date as per Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017.

2. Applicability of Advance Ruling:
The appellant referenced the AAAR, Maharashtra ruling to claim the refund. However, as per Section 103 of the CGST Act, 2017, the advance ruling is binding only on the applicant who sought it and the concerned officer or jurisdictional officer. Since the ruling was from Maharashtra and the appellant filed the refund claim in Rajasthan, the ruling was not applicable or binding in Rajasthan. Consequently, the appellant's claim based on this ruling was not valid.

3. Provisions under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017:
Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017, allows for a refund of any tax, interest, or other amounts paid within two years from the relevant date. The appellant argued that all conditions under Section 54 were met and that the relevant date should be considered as the date of the AAAR ruling or the date of receipt of goods/services. However, the adjudicating authority found that Section 54 does not provide for a refund of unutilized ITC except in cases of zero-rated supplies made without payment of tax or where credit has accumulated due to an inverted duty structure. Therefore, the appellant's refund claim was beyond the provisions of the law.

4. Time Limit for Taking ITC under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017:
Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, sets a time limit for taking eligible credit. The appellant admitted that the time for taking credit had expired, which led to the refund claim. The adjudicating authority noted that the AAAR ruling did not pertain to a specific period and that ITC, if expired or lapsed, could not be refunded as it became "dead ITC." Consequently, the appellant's argument for a refund was not supported by the provisions of Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017.

Conclusion:
The appeal was rejected based on the following findings:
- The AAAR ruling from Maharashtra was not applicable in Rajasthan.
- Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017, does not provide for a refund of unutilized ITC in the appellant's case.
- The time limit for taking ITC had expired, making the refund claim invalid.

The adjudicating authority upheld the original order and dismissed the appeal.