9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 1165 - Commissioner - GSTRefund of Input Tax Credit - credit accumulated due to Inverted Tax Structure - time limitation - period July, 2017 to March, 2018 - whether application of refund filed by the appellant is time barred as per Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017 as amended, or not? - HELD THAT - The due date for filing of refund application for remaining period i.e. for the month of Mar., 2018, has been extended upto 31-8-2020, in terms of the CGST Notification No. 55/2020-Central Tax, dated 27-6-2020 - it is obvious that refund application for the period July, 2017 to February, 2018 is time barred as the same was filed on 13-6-2020. Whereas, the refund application for the month of Mar., 2018 falls within time limits. Whether refund claim for the tax period of March, 2018 is inadmissible or not? - HELD THAT - The adjudicating authority has rejected the refund for the period of March, 2018, as mentioned inadmissible since the refund amount works out to negative figures as per Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017. Thus the adjudicating authority has correctly rejected the refund for the month of March, 2018 by applying the formulae as provided in Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017. Whether principle of natural justice has been followed in the instant case or not? - HELD THAT - The adjudicating authority had issued Show Cause Notice in form of RFD-08 to the appellant, also provided opportunity for personal hearing . However, the appellant neither attended the same on the stipulated day nor filed any reply of the same. Further, the appellant wished to clarify the issue from the adjudicating authority/proper officer through letter via e-mail and the adjudicating authority properly replied to the appellant - there are no merit in the contention of the appellant. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the application for refund filed by the appellant is time-barred as per Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017. 2. Whether the refund claim for the tax period of March 2018 is inadmissible. 3. Whether the principles of natural justice have been followed in the instant case. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: (a) Time Barred Application: The appellant argued that the relevant date for filing the refund application should be the end of the financial year in which the claim for refund arises, as per the unamended clause (e) of Explanation 2 to Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017. The appellant cited various case laws, including West U.P. Sugar Mills Assn. v. State of U.P. and Govinddas v. Income Tax Officer, to support the contention that amendments should not have retrospective effect. However, the adjudicating authority clarified that the clause (e) was substituted by Section 23 of the CGST (Amendment) Act, 2018, which changed the relevant date to the due date for furnishing the return under Section 39 for the period in which the claim for refund arises. Thus, the application for the period July 2017 to February 2018 was deemed time-barred as it was filed on 13-6-2020, beyond the due date of 20-3-2020. The refund application for March 2018 was within the extended due date of 31-8-2020. (b) Inadmissibility of Refund for March 2018: The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim for March 2018 on the grounds that the refund amount calculated as per Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017, resulted in a negative figure. The appellant's contention that the refund should be considered for the entire period from July 2017 to March 2018 was dismissed. The adjudicating authority upheld the rejection of the refund for March 2018, stating that the formula provided in Rule 89(5) was correctly applied. (c) Principles of Natural Justice: The appellant claimed that the principles of natural justice were violated as they were not given adequate time to respond to the Show Cause Notice (SCN) and were not afforded an opportunity to be heard. The adjudicating authority countered this by stating that the appellant was issued an SCN in Form RFD-08 and was given an opportunity for a personal hearing, which the appellant did not attend. Moreover, the adjudicating authority responded to the appellant's queries via email. Therefore, it was concluded that the principles of natural justice were followed, and the appellant's contention lacked merit. Conclusion: The adjudicating authority found no infirmity in the rejection of the refund claim. The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld as proper. The refund application for the period July 2017 to February 2018 was time-barred, and the refund for March 2018 was inadmissible as per the applicable rules. The principles of natural justice were deemed to have been followed in the proceedings.
|
