2023 (2) TMI 430 - HC - GST

Refund of CGST under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 89(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - case of revenue is that the petitioner had not established that the goods had been received by providing details of other vehicles in respect of the remaining 124 invoices - HELD THAT - In the present case, there is no dispute that the petitioner had filed its return disclosing all necessary details for claiming the refund. It was, accordingly, also sanctioned in terms of the Order-in-Original dated 12.09.2019 - It appears from the review order dated 15.03.2020 that a few invoices were picked up for scrutiny. Out of the said invoices, it was found that the vehicles mentioned in two invoices were not registered on the e-vahan portal. It is on the basis of this finding that the decision to file an appeal was taken by the Commissioner of Tax. He assumed that the refund claims made by the petitioner were dubious solely on the basis of the aforesaid finding. However, the Appellate Authority had found the said finding to be incorrect - thus, the review order dated 15.03.2020 to file an appeal against the Order-in-Original is founded on an erroneous finding. Having accepted the same, the Appellate Authority was required to reject the Revenue s appeal outrightly. Having established that the foundation of the Revenue s appeal is flawed, the petitioner was not required to do anything more. The Appellate Authority did not find any flaw in the details as furnished by the petitioner. There is neither any tangible reason to doubt the particulars, as stated in the invoices, nor any finding that the same are untrue - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order allowing Revenue's appeal against refund application under CGST.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged an order allowing Revenue's appeal against a refund application under CGST.
2. The petitioner applied for a refund under Section 54 of the CGST Act, which was initially approved.
3. The Commissioner reviewed the order and directed an appeal based on discrepancies in vehicle details on invoices.
4. The Appellate Authority found two vehicles were registered but demanded proof for the remaining 124 invoices.
5. The Authority upheld the appeal, stating lack of evidence for goods receipt in the remaining invoices.
6. The respondent argued for proof of registration for all vehicles used in transporting goods.
7. The petitioner argued no legal requirement exists to provide details for all vehicles unless doubts are raised.
8. Section 16 of the Act outlines conditions for input tax credit, including possession of invoices and goods receipt.
9. Despite the initial doubt, the petitioner had provided necessary details for refund approval.
10. The review order's basis for appeal was flawed as the Appellate Authority confirmed vehicle registration for the two invoices.
11. The flawed foundation of the appeal rendered it unnecessary for the petitioner to provide additional evidence.
12. The Appellate Authority found no flaws in the petitioner's submitted details and no reason to doubt their accuracy.
13. The petition was allowed, setting aside the impugned order and directing refund disbursement.
14. Each party was instructed to bear their own costs in the matter.