9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per Officer i.e. Assistant Commissioner, Division-F, Jaipur - it is deduced that the appellant was neither received the Show cause notice (RFD-08) in appropriate manner nor got the opportunity of being heard to put their submission before the proper officer. The Proper Officer while passing the refund order of the appellant neither considered their defence submission/reply nor granted the opportunity of personal hearing - matter remanded with the direction to make necessary verification regarding the correctness of the averment of the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand. - 119 (MAA)CGST/JPR/2020 - - - Dated:- 28-12-2020 - Shri Manzoor Ali Ansari, Additional Commissioner (Appeals) ORDER This appeal has been filed under Section 107 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter also referred to as the Act ) against Order No. ZY0802200326224, dated 26-2-2020 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order ) filed by M/s. VNL Exports, G-1, 126, 127, EPIP, Garment Zone, Sitapura Industrial Area, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302022 (hereinafter referred to as the appellant ) passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division-F, Jaipur(hereinafter referred to as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of communication which fulfils the requirement of Sec. 169 of the CGST Act, 2017 cannot be treated as a valid service. (1.3) One of the modes of communication as per Sec. 169 is by making it available on the Common Portal . In the instant case the notice was not made available at all. As there was no option to see or download whatever that was being shown at the common portal, The appellant also produces herewith the screenshot printout of the Common portal where only the number of the SCN was being reflected and nothing else was visible. (2) The Learned AC did not consider the response submitted by the appellant. (2.1) Without prejudice to the discussion made in Ground 1, above; even though the appellant submitted his reply to the Show Cause Notice in form RFD-09 as the portal allowed the same and he knew that some Show-Cause Notice was issued (of course without knowledge of the contents therein due to the reasons described in the Ground 1 above), the appellant enquired the Jurisdictional Superintendent Range 27, Division F, Jaipur about the reason for such SCN, to which he was replied that it is due to the reason that he has not filed the DRC-03 as per the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the whole process there was no question raised as to applicability of eligibility of the refund. It was only the process flaw at the end of the Ld. Assistant Commissioner. At all the stages it was being told to the appellant that his refund filed was valid. (2.7) The appellant also describes herewith that his refund was filed within the allowed time as per Sec. 54. It was against the unutilised Input Tax Credit in the Electronic Credit Ledger available to the appellant being supplier of zero-rated supply of goods. (2.8) The amount was validly debited by the appellant in form DRC-03 and submitted to the Ld. AC along with form RFD-09. There remains no reason for which the application of refund was rejected by the Ld. AC. (2.8) Thus this order is liable to be set aside on this ground. (3) The Learned AC did not provide sufficient opportunity of being heard. The sufficient opportunity of being heard was not provided to the appellant as the SCN was not issued properly and also no time limit was given for personal appearance of the appellant. (4) The Learned AC did not made available order to the appellant. (4.1) In the same manner as in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he instant case the notice was not made available at all. As there was no option to see or download whatever that was being shown at the common portal. The appellant also produces herewith the screen shot of the Common portal where only the number of the SCN was being reflected and nothing else was visible. Download option is not there. (B.1) Without prejudice to the discussion made in Ground 1 above; even though the appellant submitted his reply to the Show Cause Notice in form RFD-09 as the portal allowed the same and he knew that some Show Cause Notice was issued (of course without knowledge of the contents therein due to the reasons described in the Ground 1 above), the appellant enquired the Jurisdictional Superintendent Range 27, Division F, Jaipur about the reason for such SCN, to which he was replied that it is due to the reason that he has not filed the DRC-03 as per the procedure prescribed in Circular No. 125/44/2019, dated 18-11-2019. (B.2) As per the said information received from the Superintendent the appellant filed DRC-03 of the final amount of the refund of ₹ 7,22,691/-. The appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (C) The Ld. AC grossly erred by law by not providing sufficient opportunity of being heard while issuing Show cause notice. (C.1) That the sufficient opportunity of being heard was not provided to the appellant as the SCN was not issued properly and also no time limit was given for personal appearance of the appellant. . . (D) The Learned AC erred by law, as he did not made available order to the appellant. (D.1) In the same manner as in the case of SCN the order passed by the Ld. AC in the form of RFD-06 was not made available to the appellant. The order also is not downloadable at all and at the same time no physical delivery of the order was made. (D.2) Thus, there was no communication at all. As already discussed in Ground 1 above the order also needs to be communicated to the assessee in the manner prescribed by Sec. 169. Thus, in the absence of such proper communication the order cannot be binding on the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person. (5) The proper officer shall, if sufficient cause is shown by the person chargeable with tax, grant time to the said person and adjourn the hearing for reasons to be recorded in writing : Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted for more than three times to a person during the proceedings. (6) The proper officer, in his order, shall set out the relevant facts and the basis of decision. Further, as per first proviso to sub-rule (3) of Rule 92 of CGST Rule, 2017 - Where the proper officer is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that the whole or any part of the amount claimed as refund is not admissible or is not payable to the applicant, he shall issue a notice in FORM GST RFD-08 to the applicant, requiring him to furnish a reply in FORM GST RFD-09 within a period of fifteen days of the receipt, of such notice and after considering the reply, make an order in FORM GST RFD-06 sanctioning the amount of refund in whole or part, or rejecting the said refund claim and the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
