9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 532 - HC - GSTRefund of Input Tax Credit (ITC) - exports effected during the period January, 2021 to September, 2021 - Zero Rated Supplies under Section 54(3)(i) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - The petitioner was not required to make repeated applications for refund after it had prevailed in its appeals before the appellate authority. The appellate proceedings are a continuation of the petitioner s applications for refund and, therefore, the Orders-in-Appeals were required to be implemented - It cannot be accepted that it is open for the respondent to raise any deficiency memo after a tax payer has succeeded in appellate proceedings. Undisputedly, the petitioner had filed its application in the requisite form (GST RFD-01) along with the necessary declarations and undertaking. A tax payer may file a fresh online application to trigger the processing of its refund, however, it is not open for the respondents to raise further deficiency memos regarding the same - it cannot be accepted that the petitioner s refund can be withheld merely on the ground that the respondent proposes to review the Orders-in-Appeal dated 31.01.2023. However, it is clarified that the disbursement of the refund in favour of the petitioner would not preclude the respondents from availing their remedies against the Orders-in-Appeal in accordance with law. The respondent shall forthwith sanction the refund claim as preferred by the petitioner to the extent as accepted by the appellate authority along with applicable interest in accordance with the provisions of the CGST Act - Petition allowed.
Issues involved: Refund of Input Tax Credit (ITC) for exports made under Letter of Undertaking (LUT) from January 2021 to September 2021.
Summary of Judgment: 1. The petitioner filed refund claims for ITC related to exports made under LUT for the period from January 2021 to September 2021. The respondent acknowledged the claims but did not process them within the stipulated period. 2. After delays, the respondent issued a Show Cause Notice proposing denial of the refund claimed by the petitioner on various grounds. The petitioner appealed the rejection before the appellate authority. 3. The appellate authority partly allowed the petitioner's refund claims, but the respondent failed to process the refund despite the appellate authority's decision. 4. The petitioner refiled the refund claim based on the appellate authority's decision, but the respondent alleged deficiencies in the application, which the court found unnecessary as the petitioner had already provided the required documents. 5. The court held that the petitioner was not required to make repeated refund applications after succeeding in the appellate proceedings. The appellate proceedings were a continuation of the refund application, and the orders of the appellate authority needed to be implemented. 6. The respondent's argument that a fresh online application was required post-appellate success was rejected by the court, emphasizing that the circular setting out the procedure should not be used to create unnecessary hurdles for taxpayers. 7. The court directed the respondent to sanction the refund claim as accepted by the appellate authority and process the petitioner's request in accordance with the law without raising further deficiency memos. 8. It was clarified that the disbursement of the refund would not prevent the respondent from challenging the Orders-in-Appeal through appropriate legal channels. 9. The petition was allowed, and the respondent was instructed to process the refund claim and the request in Form GST-PMT-03 as per the appellate authority's decision and the CGST Act provisions. 10. All pending applications were disposed of by the court.
|
