9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 1104 - HC - GSTRefund of unutilized input tax credit - rejection of petitioner s appeal on the ground that, it did not reflect zero rated turnover in the returns - suppression of sales turnover or not - period April, 2018 to March, 2019 - section 16(3) of Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act) read with section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (MGST Act) and rules framed therein - HELD THAT - Since the annual returns have been filed and it is not clear whether respondent No.4 got an opportunity to consider the annual returns, the matter has to be remanded to respondent No.4 for de novo consideration. The statement of Mr.Paranjape that copy of the annual returns will be supplied to respondent No.4 within two weeks from today is accepted. The matter is remanded for de novo consideration. Respondent No.4 shall dispose the appeal within four weeks of receiving copy of the annual returns filed - Petition disposed off.
Issues:
Impugning of 11 identical orders rejecting appeals for refund of unutilized input tax credit under IGST Act, CGST Act, and MGST Act due to non-reflection of zero rated turnover in returns. Analysis: The petitioner, a company incorporated in Hong Kong and registered in India, filed claims for refund of unutilized input tax credit for the period April 2018 to March 2019, excluding May 2018, under relevant tax laws. The appeals for these refunds were rejected on the grounds of non-reflection of zero rated turnover in the returns. The petitioner argued that it was a clerical error and not a suppression of sales turnover. It was highlighted that the zero rated supplies were reported in the annual returns filed on 24th March 2021, after the appeal was filed on 14th March 2021. During a personal hearing, copies of the annual returns were tendered, but were not reflected in the impugned orders. The respondent contended that there was no evidence in the petition to indicate the submission of annual returns. The petitioner's counsel mentioned a similar situation for the subsequent period, where the concerned authority allowed the subsequent returns to be accepted and suitable orders were passed. The High Court noted that since the annual returns had been filed, and it was unclear if respondent No.4 had the opportunity to consider them, the matter needed to be remanded for de novo consideration. The Court accepted the petitioner's commitment to provide a copy of the annual returns to respondent No.4 within two weeks. Consequently, the High Court quashed and set aside the 11 impugned orders dated 25th August 2021, remanding the matter for fresh consideration. Respondent No.4 was directed to dispose of the appeal within four weeks of receiving the annual returns. In case of an adverse order, a personal hearing was mandated, with a notice communicated at least seven working days in advance. The Court clarified that no observations were made on the merits of the case, and the petition was disposed of without any order as to costs.
|
