9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 1039X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mumbai and not possible at a very short period of time to attend the hearing - But instead of giving some time and accepting the request of the appellant for seeking of time to submit the reply, the adjudicating authority has passed the Orders-in-Original rejecting the refund claims filed by the appellant. Thus, the appellant did not avail the opportunity of personal hearing and without considering his submission the adjudicating authority has passed the order. The adjudicating authority while rejecting the refund claims of the appellant neither considered their first request for seeking 15 days time to submit reply to show cause notice nor granted any sufficient opportunity of time to attend the personal hearing despite their written request dated 22.10.2019 - Also, non-passing of speaking order indeed amount to denial of natural justice. Before passing of orders atleast their request for seeking 15 days time to submit their reply to show cause notice should have been considered and at least speaking order should have been passed by giving proper opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant and detailing factors leading to rejection of refund claims. Such order is not sust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial services in India under the category of Banking and Financial Services. Amongst various other services, the Appellant provides banking services to Importer/Exporters. 2.2 The appellant has filed refund claim under Section 54 of CGST Act,2017 for refund under any other category. On scrutiny of refund claim filed by the appellant, the adjudicating authority has found following deficiencies and issued the Show Cause Notices in FORM GST-RFD-08 vide F. No. V(18)Div-H/Ref/SBI/24/2019/2865 dated 14.10.2019 proposing for rejection of refund claim that : (1) The claimant has not submitted the final outcome of the referred SCN whether the issue has been finally decided in favour of the assessee or not. Further, the claimant has submitted that as per Section 17(4) of CGST Act, 2017 they have availed the Input Tax Credit of 50% of IGST paid under reverse charge. Since, they do not accept the liability to pay IGST under reverse charge. They have filed refund for balance 50% of IGST paid under RCM. However, the assessee has not fulfilled the conditions for non apply of 50% restrictions as the assessee has paid Tax under RCM and claimed ITC. 2.3 The adjudicating authority vide Ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax under reverse charge and claimed ITC. Further, as per Notification No.13/2017-CT(Rates) and 10/2017-IT(Rates) both dated 28.06.2017 - Any service supplied by any person who is located in a non taxable territory to any person located in taxable territory (other than non taxable on line recipient) the whole of tax leviable shall be paid by the recipient of service on reverse charge basis. Therefore, on the services provided by the Foreign Bank Tax is payable by recipient of service (i.e. SBI). 2.5 The refund claim filed by the appellant is not covered by any of the refund category mentioned in Section 54 and claimed under any other category. There is no specific provision for refund of the tax paid under RCM by the assessee under protest till the issue is finalized. 2.6 The claimant in response to SCN, vide letter dated 22.10.2019 has sought time of 15 days to submit reply, but no response was received, therefore, claims found inadmissible. 3. Being aggrieved with the impugned orders all dated 07.11.2019, the appellant has filed the appeals on the following grounds which are summarized as under:- that the impugned order has been passed ex-parte and not sustainable. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the submission already made in the grounds of appeal and requested to decide the case accordingly. 5. I have carefully gone through the case records and submissions made in the appeal memorandum as well as oral submission at the time of personal hearing. I find that the adjudicating authority has rejected the refund claim on the ground that the appellant has not submitted the final outcome of the referred SCN whether the issue has been finally decided in favour of the assessee or not. That, on the services provided by the Foreign Bank, Tax is payable by recipient of service (i.e. SBI). The refund claims filed by the appellant is not covered by any of the refund category mentioned in Section 54 and claimed under any other category and there is no specific provision for refund of the tax paid under RCM. 6. I find that the appellant bas mainly contested in their appeal memo that the adjudicating authority has passed the ex-parte order and had not granted any opportunity of hearing and rejected the refund claim filed by them. Further, they stated that the show cause notice dated 14.10.2019 for fixing the date of personal hearing in the matter fixed on 18.10.2019 was received on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
