9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 1116 - Commissioner - GSTRefund on account of Assessment/Provisional Assessment/Appeal/Any other Order through portal - refund rejected on the ground that the taxpayer has wrongly filed the refund claim in the category of appeals as there was no amount deposited by the taxpayer while filing the appeal against the MOV-09, dated 16-9-2019 - HELD THAT - It is found that RFD-01, dated 22-6-2020 was filed with Division for refund of IGST @ 18% and penalty of equivalent amount i.e. ₹ 7,50,618/- deposited in pursuance to appeal allowed by Commissioner (Appeals)-II, State Tax, Haridwar - Further, the appellant has deposited ₹ 7,50,618/- to the Electronic Cash Ledger vide Reference No. 201909160845602, dated 16-9-2019 but had not discharged his liability towards tax and penalty payable under the Act by debiting the electronic cash ledger in consonance to Section 49(3) of the CGST Act, 2017. Consequently, the same amount was available in his Electronic Cash Ledger for use. The proper officer i.e. the Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division, Bhiwadi has precisely rejected the refund claim that the taxpayer has wrongly filed the refund claim in the category of appeals as there was no amount deposited by the taxpayer while filing the appeal against the MOV-09, dated 16-9-2019. The appellant stated that show cause notice was issued without mentioning DIN No. upon it and as per Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST, dated 23rd December, 2019, generation and quoting DIN on any communication issued by CBIC to taxpayers including emails is mandatory with an objective to bring more transparency and accountability, hence this show cause notice seems to be invalid and to be treated as void ab initio since it is issued without DIN - Appeal disposed off.
Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim by the Adjudicating Authority. 2. Alleged procedural irregularities in issuing show cause notice. 3. Discrepancy in re-crediting the amount to the Electronic Cash Ledger. 4. Dealing with the amount paid through DRC-03 separately. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the impugned order rejecting the refund claim of the appellant. The appellant contended that the amount deposited through DRC-03 was for the appeal allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals)-II, State Tax, Haridwar. The Adjudicating Authority held that the appellant had not debited the Electronic Cash Ledger as required by Section 49(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, thus rejecting the refund claim. 2. The appellant raised concerns about the show cause notice being issued without a Document Identification Number (DIN), citing Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST mandating the use of DIN for transparency. However, the Adjudicating Authority found no merit in this argument, stating that the online system of the GSTN portal allows for easy verification of records, rendering the absence of DIN insignificant. 3. The appellant highlighted the failure to re-credit the amount to the Electronic Cash Ledger post the refund order. Despite the acknowledgment by the Assistant Commissioner that the amount was eligible for re-credit, the appellant claimed non-compliance. The Commissioner of CGST agreed that the amount should be re-credited but no action was taken, leading to dissatisfaction on the appellant's part. 4. The Adjudicating Authority addressed the separate issue of the amount paid through DRC-03, dated 3-6-2020, stating it was eligible for re-credit. However, the appellant raised concerns over the non-re-credit of the amount to the Electronic Cash Ledger, emphasizing the lack of resolution despite raising the issue with the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner of CGST. In conclusion, the appeal was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority, upholding the decision to reject the refund claim based on the failure to debit the Electronic Cash Ledger as required by law. The procedural irregularities in issuing the show cause notice were deemed insignificant due to the verifiability of records on the GSTN portal. The discrepancy in re-crediting the amount to the Electronic Cash Ledger remained unresolved, causing dissatisfaction on the part of the appellant. The issue of the amount paid through DRC-03 was acknowledged as eligible for re-credit, but the failure to re-credit led to further contention.
|
