2022 (9) TMI 372 - HC - GST

Recovery of erroneous refund of CGST - allegation of availing benefit of irregular Input Tax Credit (ITC) - Export of goods - - generation of the e-way bills not done - HELD THAT - Coming to the facts leading to the present case, the show cause notice as issued to the petitioner had made three precise allegations that the supplier of the goods to the respondents had supplied the goods without generation of the e-way bills which was contrary to the E-Way Bill Rules and thus, the claim of the respondents was liable to be rejected. That being the nature of the allegations levelled in the show cause notice, the submission of Sri K. D. Nag that the goods sent from Surat to Kanpur for export did not carry e-way bills as admitted by the respondents in their memo of appeal, cannot be accepted as it is well settled that the allegations as levelled in the show cause notice should be clear and specific and the findings cannot go beyond the allegations as levelled in the show cause notice. In the present case, the show cause notice is confined to the allegations against the respondents receiving the supplies of goods without the e-way bills, which fact has been dealt with by the appellate authority after perusing the invoices that the goods were supplied to the respondents from Surat to Surat and thus, the notification dated 19.09.2018 was clearly in favour of the respondents. In the present case, no allegations were levelled in the show cause notice to the effect that the respondents had transferred the finished goods for export from Surat to Kanpur without e-way bill as such the arguments of Sri Nag on that count are without any foundation and thus liable to be rejected. In view of the specific finding by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the goods were received by the respondents through e-way bills within the same city, there was no requirement of generation of e-way bills as provided under the notification dated 19.09.2018, the said finding has not been shown to be perverse or in any way arbitrary or illegal in the arguments as raised by Sri Nag - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to appellate order allowing refund claim, Allegations of erroneous refund, Non-generation of e-way bills, Appeal against rejection of refund claim, Compliance with e-way bill rules, Allegations of fraudulent refund obtaining, Transporting taxable goods without specified documents.

Analysis:
The petition challenges an appellate order allowing a refund claim after rejection by the Deputy Commissioner. The respondents sought a refund of CGST on exported goods, which was partially granted but later deemed erroneous due to alleged non-compliance with e-way bill rules. The show cause notice accused the respondents of claiming Input Tax Credit without proper documentation, leading to the rejection of a portion of the refund claim and imposition of penalties. The appellate authority allowed the appeal, citing the non-requirement of e-way bills for intra-city movement based on a specific notification. However, the department contested the appellate order, arguing that the absence of a statutory tribunal rendered the decision challengeable.

The department contended that the respondents admitted to transporting goods without e-way bills in their appeal memo, contradicting the appellate authority's decision. A supplementary affidavit highlighted the absence of e-way bills in the appeal documents, raising doubts about the appellate decision. The court reviewed the case records and invoices to verify the claims made by both parties. The department's allegations of non-compliance with e-way bill rules were central to the dispute, with the court emphasizing the importance of specific allegations in show cause notices.

The court emphasized the need for clear and specific allegations in show cause notices to inform the noticee of the charges properly. It referenced legal precedents to support this principle and noted that the appellate decision was based on the specific circumstances of the case, where e-way bills were not required for intra-city movements. The court found no grounds to interfere with the appellate order, as the findings were not deemed arbitrary or illegal. Consequently, the writ petition challenging the appellate order was dismissed for lack of merit.