9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1838X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re - whether while calculating the inverted rate refund claim under Section 54 of CGST Act net ITC will be taken after deduction of inverted rate purchase or otherwise? HELD THAT:- Sub-rule 5 of Rule 89 of Central Goods Services Tax Rules, 2017 has given the formula for calculating the matter to refund on account of inverted duty structure - Net ITC has been specifically defined in the rule, which states that input tax credit availed on input during the relevant period other than input tax credit pertain to zero-rated supply mentioned in Rule 89 of 4A 4B. The adjudicating authority, on his own has travelled beyond the clarification as prescribed in the statute. The adjudicating authority should have relied on the exact wording of the statut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he adjudicating authority, under Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017 for accumulated ITC on account of rate of tax on inputs being higher than the rate of the output supplies. The adjudicating authority, vide the above mentioned impugned orders, partly allowed (rejected entire refund in only one case as mentioned in Serial Number 6 above) the refund claims on the ground that as per Rule 89(5) read with Section 54 of the CGST Act, for the purpose of calculation of net ITC, input means only those inputs on which rate of tax is higher than the rate of final product. 3. Being aggrieved, the appellants have filed the present appeals before me. The appellants argued that the adjudicating authority has adopted a wrong formula to calculate the eligi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efund sanctioned and rejected. 6. I have carefully gone through the facts of the case on records, appeal memorandum and submissions made by the appellants at the time of personal hearing. Prima facie, I find that the appellants had filed the refund claims under Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 89 of CGST Rules, 2017 for accumulated ITC on account of rate of tax on inputs being higher than the rate of the output supplies. Now, the main issue remains to be discussed by me is whether while calculating the inverted rate refund claim under Section 54 of CGST Act net ITC will be taken after deduction of inverted rate purchase or otherwise. I find that sub-rule 5 of Rule 89 of Central Goods & Services Tax Rules, 2017 has given the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Also, in support of their claim, the appellants have submitted a worksheet which reflects all the detail as per the prescribed formula. I have placed a scanned copy of the said worksheet below, for better understanding; Month Turn-over of Inverted rated supply of goods Net ITC Adjusted Total Turnover Tax payable on such Inverted rated supply of goods Refund Receivable Refund Receivable as per Online Application ARN No. 1 2 3 4 IGST CGST SGST 5=(1*2/3)-4 JULY' 17 9216000 11631321 28699555 1658880 1975686 50242 50242 2076170 AB240717986104W REFUND REJECTED 224199 50242 50242 324683 REFUND RECEIVED 1751487 0 0 1751487 AUG.' 17 20850405 21269295 41101720 3754693 5219158 910231 147480 6276869 AB24081 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the appellants. Thus, looking above, I find that the adjudicating authority, on his own has travelled beyond the clarification as prescribed in the statute. The adjudicating authority should have relied on the "exact wording" of the statute under consideration. Lord Diplock in the Duport Steel v. Sirs case (1980) defined the rule : "Where the meaning of the statutory words is plain and unambiguous it is not then for the judges to invent fancied ambiguities as an excuse for failing to give effect to it's plain meaning because they consider the consequences for doing so would be inexpedient, or even unjust or immoral." This definition says that a judge should not deviate from the literal meaning of the words even if the outcome is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (C) In the case of Favourite Industries, 2012 (278) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.); Interpretation of statutes - Exemption notification - It is concession/exception in fiscal statute, and is required to construed strictly -There cannot be any addition or subtraction to words employed in it - Its wordings have to be given their natural meaning, when they are simple, clear and unambiguous. [paras 14, 25] 7. Therefore, I find that the adjudicating authority has wrongly deducted ITC of the same and lower tax rate availed by the appellants and agree to the arguments placed forward by the latter. 8. In view of above, I set aside the Impugned orders and allow the appeals filed by the appellants. 9. The appeals filed by the appellant stand d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
