2024 (1) TMI 283 - HC - GST

Seeking refund on the Input Tax Credit - rejection on the ground that there was a mismatch of turnover - excess availment and misdeclaration of invoice value and no supporting documents - HELD THAT - The order-in-original records that the documents submitted by the petitioner have been considered, however, proceeds on the premise that the petitioner has not submitted any documentary evidence to substantiate the submission about technical error and has not submitted any documents before the appellate authority, which were submitted alongwith the reply to the show cause notice. The appellate authority appears to have misconstrued the submission of the petitioner. Case of the petitioner is that petitioner had uploaded documents, however, the system did not register the documents which were uploaded from the end of the petitioner. The appellate authority records that petitioner had not submitted any documents which were submitted alongwith the reply - From the record of the respondents, it appears that documents were not uploaded. Since documents were not uploaded, there could be no document which the petitioner could file in the appeal which had been submitted alongwith the show cause notice. A refund cannot be rejected merely on the ground of non-supply of authenticated document. In case party is entitled to refund, it is open to the Department to call for further clarification or documents as may be required to satisfy itself that refund is due and payable. Reference may also be had to Section 54 (1) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, which provides for a period of two years from the relevant date to make an application seeking refund. The relevant period in issue is April, 2021 to March, 2022 and as such, the application of the petitioner even today is within the limitation prescribed under Section 54 (1) of the said Act - the matter needs to be relegated to the concerned authority to re-adjudicate the application of the petitioner by taking into account the documents filed by the petitioner in support of his application for refund. Accordingly, the order-in-original dated 10.10.2022 and order in appeal dated 29.08.2023 are set aside. Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
The petitioner challenges the dismissal of their appeal seeking refund on Input Tax Credit for the period April 2021 to March 2022, based on the order-in-original dated 10.10.2022.

Details of the Judgment:

1. Grounds of Rejection of Refund Application:
The order-in-original rejected the refund application due to a mismatch of turnover, excess availment, misdeclaration of invoice value, and lack of supporting documents to disprove the contentions raised in the show cause notice.

2. Lack of Personal Hearing and Technical Glitch:
The petitioner disputes the order's claim of granting a personal hearing, stating that no such hearing took place. They argue that relevant documents were uploaded in response to the show cause notice, despite the order stating otherwise. The petitioner asserts a technical error in the system prevented the registration of the uploaded documents.

3. Misconstrued Submission by Appellate Authority:
The appellate authority misunderstood the petitioner's submission, claiming no documents were submitted to support the technical error assertion. However, the petitioner maintains that the uploaded documents were not registered due to a system glitch.

4. Disregard of Annexure B and Authentication Issue:
The order-in-original disregarded Annexure B, containing necessary information, due to lack of authentication. The court notes that the absence of authentication is a curable defect, and the petitioner could have been asked to rectify it or provide additional supporting material like vouchers or bills.

5. Refund Entitlement and Time Limitation:
The court emphasizes that a refund cannot be denied solely based on the absence of authenticated documents. If a party is eligible for a refund, the department can request further clarification or documents. The petitioner claims to have the relevant documents supporting the refund claim. The application for refund falls within the two-year limitation period prescribed by Section 54(1) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

6. Judgment and Remittance for Re-adjudication:
The court sets aside the order-in-original and the appeal's decision, remitting the matter to the adjudicating authority for re-evaluation. The authority is instructed to reconsider the petitioner's application, taking into account the documents already submitted within eight weeks. If additional documents are needed, the authority can request them from the petitioner.

7. Disposal of Writ Petition:
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly, with instructions for further proceedings and document consideration by the adjudicating authority.