9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 754 - HC - GSTRefund of IGST - rejection on the ground that the petitioner did not fulfill the condition contained in Clause (v) of Section 2(6) of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 - HELD THAT - Broadly, this condition required the petitioner to demonstrate, that the supplier of service and the recipient of service are not mere establishments of a distinct person. The Order-in-Appeal dated 19.04.2022, has returned the finding that the petitioner fulfilled the condition stipulated in clause (v) of section 2(6) of the IGST Act, but proceeded to reject the appeal on an entirely different ground i.e., non-fulfillment of condition contained in Clause (iii) of Section 2(6) of the IGST Act. Issue notice - List the matter on 26.09.2022.
Issues Involved:
1. Application for stay of operation of an order by Additional Commissioner CGST. 2. Scope of impugned order dated 19.04.2022 compared to show cause notice and Order-in-Original. 3. Rejection of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) claim for April 2020. 4. Interpretation of conditions under the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act 2017. 5. Grounds for rejecting the appeal in the Order-in-Appeal dated 19.04.2022. Analysis: 1. The judgment addressed an application seeking a stay on the operation of an order issued by the Additional Commissioner CGST. The court declined to pass an interim order at that stage, emphasizing the need for final adjudication in the main action, which is the writ petition. The application was closed without prejudice to the parties' rights in the writ petition. 2. The petitioner contested the impugned order dated 19.04.2022, arguing that it exceeded the scope of the show cause notice (SCN) from 20.07.2021 and the Order-in-Original from 30.07.2021. The court noted the rejection of the petitioner's claim for IGST refund for April 2020 based on specific conditions outlined in the IGST Act. The Order-in-Appeal of 19.04.2022 found compliance with one condition but rejected the appeal on a different ground, highlighting a discrepancy in interpretation. 3. The rejection of the petitioner's application for claiming IGST for April 2020 was based on failing to fulfill conditions specified in the law. The court noted the importance of demonstrating that the supplier and recipient of service were not merely establishments of the same entity, as required by the IGST Act. 4. The judgment delved into the interpretation of conditions under the IGST Act, particularly focusing on the fulfillment of specific clauses concerning the relationship between service providers and recipients. The court highlighted the significance of meeting these conditions for successful claims and appeals related to IGST refunds. 5. The Order-in-Appeal dated 19.04.2022 was scrutinized for its grounds of rejecting the appeal. While acknowledging compliance with one condition, the order was faulted for rejecting the appeal based on non-compliance with a different condition under the IGST Act. The court issued notice to the respondents, signaling further legal proceedings to address the discrepancies in the order. In conclusion, the judgment provided a detailed analysis of the issues raised regarding the IGST refund claim, emphasizing the need for precise compliance with statutory conditions and the correct interpretation of the law's provisions. The court's decision to examine the discrepancies between the impugned order and the statutory requirements sets the stage for a thorough legal review in subsequent proceedings.
|
