9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 29 - Commissioner - GSTRefund of excess GST paid wrongly - Refund claim is time barred under Section 54(1) or not - HELD THAT - The fresh refund application has been filed by the appellant vide ARN No. AA0809200447634 dated 21.09.2020 as per sub rule (3) of Rule 90 of. CGST Rules, 2017. Therefore, the jurisdictional officer is agreed upon that the refund claim has been filed beyond the period of two years from the relevant date as mentioned in clause (h) of explanation (2) sub section (14) of Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017. In the instant case, the refund should have been filed for the Tax period 2017-2018 on or before 31.08.2020 as it was extended vide Notification No. 35/2020 dated 03.04.2020 read with 55/2020 dated 27th June-2020 whereas the appellant has filed the fresh refund claim on 21.09.2020. There are no infirmity in the rejection of refund claim on the ground of time bar issue - appeal dismissed.
Issues involved:
1. Refund claim rejection on the ground of time bar under Section 54(1) of CGST Act, 2017. 2. Excess GST payment due to wrong calculation or misunderstanding of law. 3. Nature of the amount paid by the appellant - GST or deposit with the Government. Issue 1: Refund claim rejection on the ground of time bar under Section 54(1) of CGST Act, 2017: The appellant, M/s Aries Agro Limited, filed a refund application for the period July 2017 to March 2018, amounting to ?3,43,282. The adjudicating authority rejected the claim citing it as time-barred under Section 54(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The appellant contended that the refund application was within the limitation period and not time-barred. The appellant argued that the amount paid was not GST but a deposit with the Government, and hence, Section 54 should not apply to their application. The Commissioner observed that the excess amounts were paid under the GST tax head and issued credit notes, thus not qualifying as a deposit. The Commissioner upheld the rejection of the refund claim based on the time-bar issue. Issue 2: Excess GST payment due to wrong calculation or misunderstanding of law: The appellant claimed to have made excess GST payments due to wrong calculations in GSTR-3B for certain months. They argued that the amount paid was not payable by them and resembled a payment without legal authority. The appellant cited various case laws in their defense, but the Commissioner noted that those cases were pre-GST Act and not applicable in this scenario. The Commissioner found no provision for refund of excess amounts other than Section 54 of the CGST Act and its rules. The appellant's argument regarding the nature of the payment was dismissed, and the Commissioner concluded that the refund application would be examined under the relevant provisions of the Act and rules. Issue 3: Nature of the amount paid by the appellant - GST or deposit with the Government: The appellant argued that the amount paid was in the nature of a deposit with the Government and not GST, thereby seeking exemption from the time limitation under Section 54(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The jurisdictional officer's report highlighted that the refund claim was filed beyond the two-year period from the relevant date as specified in the Act. The Commissioner agreed with the officer's assessment, stating that the refund claim was filed after the prescribed time limit and hence rejected the appeal. The Commissioner emphasized that the fresh refund application was filed beyond the statutory deadline, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. In conclusion, the Commissioner dismissed the appeal filed by M/s Aries Agro Limited, upholding the rejection of the refund claim on the grounds of being time-barred under Section 54(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Commissioner emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory timelines for refund claims and ruled in favor of the jurisdictional officer's assessment regarding the limitation period for filing the refund application.
|
