Refund for the period of 2017-18, Goods and Services Tax - GST

[Raja Krishnan]

Dear Experts

During the COVID-19, our Refund application was rejected by the department for the year of 2017-2018 on March 2021 because of time bar. As per the Notification 09/2023-Central Tax dated 31.03.2023 (as amended Notification No.13/2022 dated 05.07.2022) my thought is that we will be eligible to apply for our Refund application for the period of 2017-2018.

So I kindly request you to advice, if any chance to get the above refund for the period of 2017-18 & 2018-19.

 

 

Posts / Replies

[GUNASEKARAN K]

Under Section 54 of the CGST Act, individuals seeking a refund of Goods and Services Tax (GST) or related interest payments must submit their application using form RFD-01 within two years from the relevant date.

The Central Tax Nofn. No.09/2023 issued to extend the time limit for issuing an order under Section 73(10), for the relevant financial year, has been extended up to 30.09.2023 and not for extension of due date for refund application.

[KASTURI SETHI]

I agree with Sh.Gunasekarak K Ji but the extension granted by the Supreme Court due to Covid-19 is also applicable to refund claims. So inform the following details :-

(i) Date of filing refund claim

(ii) Date of issuance of deficiency memo

(iii) Date of pre-consultation before the date of issuance of SCN.

(iv) The date of SCN.

(v) The date of personal hearing. Was personal hearing attended ?

(v) The date of Refund Rejection Order (Order-in-Original)

(vi) Have you not filed appeal against the refund rejection order ?

[Padmanathan Kollengode]

What is the "relevant date" and What is the date of filing refund application?

[Raja Krishnan]

Dear Kasturi Sethi sir,

In continuation of your valuable advise, we are giving the details as follows,

(i) Date of filing refund claim - 15.02.2021

(ii) Date of issuance of deficiency memo - 19.02.2021

(iii) Date of pre-consultation before the date of issuance of SCN.- NO

(iv) The date of SCN - 19.02.2021

(v) The date of personal hearing. Was personal hearing attended ? - NO

(v) The date of Refund Rejection Order (Order-in-Original) - 19.03.2021

(vi) Have you not filed appeal against the refund rejection order ? - NO

[KASTURI SETHI]

There is a violation of principles of natural justice in the Refund Rejection Order. The order was issued on 19.3.21 and you did not file appeal against the order. Why ? Now you have posted your query after a period of 2 years and 156 days.

Have you any answer for remaining dormant for such a long period ?

[KASTURI SETHI]

Delhi High Court vide Order dated 8.8.23 set aside SCN and Order-in-Original because the Adjudicating Authority violated the principles of Natural Justice. Issue is different. You can also take shelter of this case law.

2023 (8) TMI 735 - DELHI HIGH COURT - M/S. CUTHBERT OCEANS LLP VERSUS THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CGST RANGE 109 DIVISION ROHINI

[Padmanathan Kollengode]

Dear Raja Sir,

Kindly clarify whether Deficiency memo was issued on 19-2-2021 or SCN was issued?

Assuming that SCN was on 19-2-2021 and followed by an order on 19-3-2021,

Your ideal course of action is to file an appeal within statutory time limit of 3 + 1 months. Now since this time limit falls during COVID-19 period (15-3-2020 to 28-02-2022) under Supreme Court Suo Moto Order dtd 10-1-2022 - 2022 (1) TMI 385 - SC ORDER, you had time up to 90 days from 01-3-2022 i.e. 30-05-2022.

I am unable to understand from the facts as to how natural justice is violated as 1 month was given to assessee in SCN, which was not replied by him.

In my personal view, when a refund claim has been adjudicated, new claim for the same period and same issue cannot be made as the appropriate route is to file appeal against the rejection order. ( to my knowledge, the portal also doesnt permit a refund application under the same head for same period).

The only remedy I find in your case is that if you have justifiable reason for not filing appeal till now, you can challenge the order rejecting the refund before the Hon'ble High Court. Though chances of getting relief seems to be very meek, you can surely make an attempt.

[KASTURI SETHI]

If a huge amount of refund claim is involved, you can try your luck by filing writ petition with the jurisdictional High Court.

In your case refund claim has been rejected without affording an opportunity for Personal Hearing. See proviso to Rule 92 (3) of CGST Rules.

Time bar limit for filing writ petition may not be hurdle in the interest of natural justice.

[Padmanathan Kollengode]

Further,

What was the refund claim originally time barred? for 17-18 application has been filed on 19-2-2021

What was the reason for the rejection in SCN and Order?

Also check technicalities such as whether proper Form has been used, DIN attached, order is actually signed/ digitally signed, reason for rejection in SCN and Order are same, SCN and order is speaking and not cryptic etc. This will help you in High Court.

[Padmanathan Kollengode]

Kasturi Ji,

One doubt I have here is:-

Supposing the date and time of PH is mentioned in the SCN and the party does not turn up on that particular day, and order is passed ex parte can it be said to be in violation of Rule 96?

In case SCN is silent on any personal hearing, then can it be said to be in violation of Rule 96?

The querist has to examine under which his case falls into isnt ?

[Raja Krishnan]

Dear Experts all,

first of all Thank you so much yours valuable advice. Reason of the delay post, now only I joined here. Actually its huge value, that why I posted here.

[KASTURI SETHI]

Sh.Padmanathan Kollengode Ji,

You are referring to Rule 96. For P.H. Rule is 92 (3) . Pl confirm whether Rule 96 or 92 .

[Padmanathan Kollengode]

Sorry for the inadvertent error. I was referring to Rule 92 in previous post.

[KASTURI SETHI]

Sh.Padmanathan Kollengode Ji,

Q. No. 1 : Supposing the date and time of PH is mentioned in the SCN and the party does not turn up on that particular day, and order is passed ex parte can it be said to be in violation of Rule 92 ?

Ans. YES. As per Section 75 (5) three adjournments are required to be granted if the noticee/refund claimant does not attend P.H. on the date of personal hearing fixed for first time. As per Board's Circular no.125/44/2019-GST dated 18.11.2019 (as amended) and as per para no.16 of this circular, Form GS-RFD-08 is show cause notice and Form GST-RFD-06 is Adjudication Order and so same procedure prescribed in Section 73 & 74 has to be followed for rejection of refund claim by the Adjudicating Authority/Refund Rejection Authority. So Rule 92 (3) is to be read with Section 75 (4 &5) for the purpose of denial of refund claim. Three adjournments mean four opportunities for P.H. are to be granted mandatorily by the Adjudicating Authority (Refund Rejection Authority). Keeping in view of the sequence of event informed by the querist, it appears to me that 3 adjournments have not been granted to the refund claimant. Hence violation of principles of natural in this case. In this case everything has been done hurriedly by the Refund Rejection Authority. No sufficient time was given to comply with the Deficiency Memo. This point is also to be raised before the High Court. The element of 'hurriedness' shows prejudiced mind/biased mind of the Adjudicating Authority.

Q.No.2 : In case SCN is silent on any personal hearing, then can it be said to be in violation of Rule 92 ?

Ans. YES. Overall four separate letters for P.H. are to be issued. All three dates or four dates of P.H. cannot be given in ONE letter.

Q. NO.3 The querist has to examine under which his case falls into isnt ?

Ans. YES.

[Padmanathan Kollengode]

Dear Kasturi Ji,

Thank you for your detailed views. I agree to it in toto.

Regards

[KASTURI SETHI]

Sh.Padmanathan Kollengode Ji,

Your agreement with my opinion matters a lot to me. It conveys deep message to the readers. My hard work has not ended in smoke.

Thanks and regards.

[Raja Krishnan]

Dear Kasturi Sethi Sir,

Sorry for the delay reply. I humbly request your valuable advice as to what we should do next. Please guide us. once again sorry for the delay.

[KASTURI SETHI]

2021 (3) TMI 339 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - BA CONTINUUM INDIA PVT. LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA

[Raja Krishnan]

Dear K L Sethi Sir,

Thanks a lot for your worthwhile reply.

[KASTURI SETHI]

W.r.t. serial no.17 dated 22.8.23 above, if there is a ray of light at the end of the tunnel, that exists in the High Court and not elsewhere.