9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eturns as and when credit is availed. Only if they intend to file refund claim they are required to debit the same - Therefore the contention of Ld. A.R that assessee ought to have debited the amount during the existence of Finance Act, 1994 itself cannot have substance. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No. 41300 of 2019 - Final Order No. 40077/2020 - Dated:- 23-1-2020 - Hon ble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Shri R. Balagopal, Consultant For the Appellant Ms. T. Usha Devi, DC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER The brief facts of the case are that appellants were registered with the service tax department under Information Technology Software Services and were also engaged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim under Rule 5 of CCR 2004. The input services were availed prior to30.6.2017 (that prior to GST regime); However, the refund claim was filed on 22.03.2018 after introduction of GST. At the time of filing the refund claim, there was no ST return required to be filed and hence they could not debit the refund amount as required under condition 2 (h) of the Notification No.27/2012-CE (NT). They had carried forward the amount of unutilied credit to TRAN-1 and then filed refund claim. They also filed TRAN-3 returns reflecting the amount as debited from TRAN-1 account. The refund claim was rejected stating that as per Section 142 (4) of CGST Act, 2017, no refund can be allowed when the balance amount has been carried forward from CENVAT accou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rongly carried forward transitional credit. It is submitted by her that appellant has carried forward credit to TRAN-1 GST and therefore as per Section 142 (4) of GST Act, 2017, they are not eligible for refund. It is further submitted by her that credit availed by the appellant though prior to 30.06.2017 they were given enough time to avail refund of the transitional credit. Though time for filing refund of such transitional credit was given to the appellants they have filed claim only on 30.06.2018. It is argued by her that debit as per para 2(h) of Notification No.27/2012 ought to have been done prior to filing the refund claim when Finance Act, 1994 was in existence. Therefore, for these reasons also appellant cannot be granted refund. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the fact also remains that there was no provision in the ACES system to debit the value of refund and also the fact that the entire credit which was carried forward in TRAN-1 stood reversed by the appellant voluntarily in its GSTR-3B filed for the month of April 2018. 7.2 The above facts, according to me, are sufficient compliances with the condition at paragraph 2(h) since post G.S.T., the scenario is different than the one prevailing prior to G.S.T. regime. Otherwise, it would become an impossible task for an assessee, more so when the filing of ST-3 returns itself was done away with. Same view was taken in the case of Fine Automotive and Industrial Radiators Pvt.Ltd. Vs CGST CE, Puducherry (supra). By judicial discipline, I am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
