2024 (6) TMI 1254 - HC - GST

Refund of unutilized accumulated ITC - Rule 89 (4) of the CGST Rules - non-constitution of GST tribunal - period July 2017 to January 2018 - HELD THAT - When the petition was filed the CGST Tribunal was not constituted. It is constituted now. Therefore on asking as to why petitioner should not file an appeal before the Tribunal it is stated that a recovery notice has also been received for Rs. 3, 62, 841/-. The petition is disposed off with a direction to petitioner to exhaust its alternate remedy by filing an appeal before the Tribunal. If the appeal is filed within four weeks from today the delay if any shall be deemed to have been condoned.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund of unutilized accumulated ITC claimed by the petitioner.
2. Rejection of refund to the extent of accumulated ITC pertaining to capital goods.
3. Filing an appeal before the CGST Tribunal.
4. Recovery notice received for the rejected refund amount.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner had applied for GST refund, and the Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise sanctioned the entire refund as claimed by the petitioner for various months in 2017 and 2018. However, appeals were filed to reject the refund to the extent of accumulated ITC related to capital goods for the period mentioned. The rejection of the refund amount led to the filing of a petition challenging this decision.

2. The Court noted that at the time of filing the petition, the CGST Tribunal was not constituted. Upon learning that a recovery notice had been received for the rejected refund amount, the petitioner was directed to exhaust the alternate remedy by filing an appeal before the Tribunal. The Court emphasized that if the appeal was filed within four weeks, any delay would be condoned.

3. The Court directed that since the refund had already been granted, no steps should be taken to recover the amount under the impugned order until the appeal was heard. This ensured that the petitioner was not disadvantaged during the process of seeking redress through the appeal before the CGST Tribunal. The judgment aimed to provide a fair opportunity for the petitioner to challenge the rejection of the refund amount pertaining to capital goods.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved, the actions taken by the Court, and the directions provided to the petitioner regarding the filing of an appeal before the CGST Tribunal.