9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 869X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rough ITC in the month of October-2019. Rs. 2,60,118/- 2. Brief Facts of the case:- 2.1 M/s Sameer Exports, 148, Dhandia House, Haldiyon Ka Rasta, Johri Bazar, Jaipur-302003 (Raj) having GSTIN 08AADFS4484P1ZG are engaged in business of local and Export sale of precious and semiprecious stones and/or jewellery has filed refund application amounting to Rs. 2,60,118/- vide ARN No.AA081020029847C dated 14.10.2020. 2.2 On scrutiny of refund application submitted by the appellant, the adjudicating authority has issued a Show Cause Notice in the Form RFD-08 dated 28.10.2020 proposing rejection of refund claim on account of following reasons and given Remark: "The Excess payment of ITC can be re-credit to ITC ledger only by GST PMT-03 as per sub rule (4A) of Rule 86 CGST Rules,2017 as amended vide Notfn No.16/2020 dated 23.03.2020." 2.3 Further, after considering their reply/submissions of the appellant, the adjudicating authority has rejected the refund claim amounting to Rs. 2,60,118/-/- and passed the impugned order in the Form of GST RFD-06 vide reference No. ZS0810200358066 dated 29.10.2020 and given Remarks "Refund is sanctioned as per claimant reply of SCN(through PMT-03)." ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er officer. Hence the said order is absolutely unacceptable. Hence the same should be quashed immediately. 8. Notwithstanding anything contrary mentioned in the above paras, the impugned order is bad in law as well as the Id. proper officer have violated the procedure and the manner provided by the board. That it's a well settled law that the clarifications/instructions/procedure or any such thing by whatever name called as may be issued by the board in any form is binding on the departmental authorities. 9. That the Rule 86(4A) specifically provides for the issue of refund order in Form PMT-03 in cases where there is excess payment of taxes and where the debit has been made by debit from the electronic credit ledger. That the relevant extract of the said rule is produced for reference: [(4A) Where a registered person has claimed refund of any amount paid as tax wrongly paid or paid in excess for which debit has been made from the electronic credit ledger, the said amount, if found admissible, shall be re-credited to the electronic credit ledger by the proper officer by an order made in FORM GST PMT-03.] 10. Further Rule 92(1A) has also been inserted in relation to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order in Form RFD-06. That the Id. proper officer did not bothered to pass the order in Form PMT-03 to the extent the excess taxes were paid by way of debit in the Electronic Credit Ledger. 14. Hence the said act and conduct of the Id. proper officer is contrary to the procedure and manner prescribed by the board. Hence the same is bad in law and therefore the impugned order should be quashed immediately. II. Because the order is original appears to be inadvertently passed in Form GST RFD-06 which resultantly led to denial of refund because the Id. proper officer actually intended to process the refund claim and re-credit the Electronic Credit Ledger. Hence the said order appears to be passed in haste and accidently and not purposefully which resulted in rejection of the refund. Hence the same should be quashed immediately. 1. That notwithstanding anything mentioned in the above grounds, it appears that the Id. proper officer through wanted to issue the refund by way of credit in the Electronic Credit Ledger but inadvertently passed the order in Form RFD-06. 2. That the above understanding is based on the contention raised in the show cause notice and the remarks made i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts is also enclosed and marked as Annexure-7 for your ready reference. 4. That further a CA certificate is also enclosed and marked as Annexure-8 certifying that excess amount of Rs. 260118/- (CGST & SGST - Rs. 130059/- each) was paid for the month of October 2019 by way of debit in the Electronic Credit Ledger and that the incidence of the tax has not been passed on to any other person. 5. That the above submissions are sufficient enough to prove that the appellant had inadvertently paid excess taxes during October 2019. Accordingly, the present case is a fit case for refund under the category "Excess payment of taxes". IV. That the adjudicating authority was predestined of passing the order against the appellant without considering the facts of the case and providing an opportunity of being heard which is unacceptable and has led to miscarriage of justice. The appellant cannot be expected to obey such order. Such gross negligence has shaken the faith of the appellant in the adjudication proceedings. 4. Personal hearing in the matter was held on 08.07.2021 through virtual mode, wherein Sh. Chirag Jain, Authorized Representative of the appellant appeared for personal hearin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sistant Commissioner has submitted/offer the comments vide his letter C.No.V(CGST)D-D/ Refund/Misc/2019-2020/182 dated 08.07.2021. The contents of the letter are as under:- 5.3 "During the month of October-2019 value of clearance as per GSTR 3B was Rs. 36,37,500/- and GST comes on this value at the rate 0.25% to Rs. 9,093.76. Further, as per CA certificate the appellant has paid inadvertently paid through ITC the GST amount to Rs. 2,69,212.54 GST amount instead of Rs. 9,093.76 during the month of October-2019. Thereby excess debit of Rs. 2, 60,118/- . As per GSTR-09, the total GST liability for the F.Y.2019-2020 is Rs. 99,855/-. Therefore, the amount could not be adjusted in the subsequent period. There is no issue of Credit/ Debit Note, hence, Section 34 of CGST Act,2017 does not attracts. It is pertinent to mention that refund was not rejected and refund amount was to be re-credited in ITC account but due to technical issue refund amount could not be re-credited in taxpayer's ITC ledger." 6. Further to verify the veracity of the refund claim, I have examined reconciliation chart in respect of tax liability of the appellant, generated by appellant through GSTN common port ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
