9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 895 - Commissioner - GSTRefund of GST - excess GST paid on canteen services to vendors during the period November-2017 to July-2018 - whether the appellant i.e. M/s Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Private Limited, Bhiwadi is eligible for refund or not as per the provisions of Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, 2017? HELD THAT - As per Section 54(1) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and as per Rule 89(1) of the Central Goods and Service Tax, 2017 for making a refund claim a person should first have to pay/deposit the tax with the government which is clear from the word any person . . paid by him means that any person who has paid the tax - In the instant case the GST has been deposited to the Govt. account by the Service Providers namely M/s Caterman Cuisine Concepts P Ltd., Tapukra, Bhiwadi and M/s ICS Foods P Ltd., RHB, Bhiwadi for the period November-2017 to July-2018 and not deposited by the appellant i.e. M/s Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Private Limited, Tapukara Industrial Area, District-Alwar. It is an admitted fact on record that in the instant case the tax has not been paid by the appellant to the Govt. account. Therefore, they are not eligible to file the refund claim. The appellant is not eligible to file refund claim - Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
1. Eligibility of the appellant for GST refund under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017. Analysis: The appeal was filed by M/s Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Private Limited against the Order-in-Original rejecting their refund claim of ?78,54,790 for excess GST paid on canteen services. The appellant contended that the show cause notice (SCN) lacked specific allegations, depriving them of the right to respond adequately. They argued that the SCN was vague, violating principles of natural justice. The appellant emphasized the importance of disclosing material facts in the notice to enable a proper defense. They cited various case laws to support their position. During the personal hearing, the appellant reiterated their submissions, seeking a favorable decision based on their arguments. However, the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) found that the refund claim was rejected because the GST was paid by the service providers and not by the appellant. The critical issue revolved around the eligibility of the appellant for a refund under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017. Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 outlines the procedure for claiming a refund of tax paid. It mandates that the person claiming a refund must have paid the tax to the government. In this case, the GST was paid by the service providers, not by the appellant. The provision does not allow for a refund claim by a party who has not deposited the tax with the government. The absence of such an option in the law makes it clear that only the taxpayer who has paid the tax is entitled to file a refund claim. The Additional Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the appellant was not eligible to file the refund claim as they had not deposited the tax with the government. The legal provisions of Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, 2017 supported this decision. The case laws cited by the appellant were deemed irrelevant in this context. Therefore, the appeal was rejected based on the appellant's ineligibility to claim the refund. In light of the above analysis and legal provisions, the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision of the adjudicating authority to reject the refund claim of M/s Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Private Limited.
|
