9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing due to COVID-19 lockdown. Moreover, the adjudicating authority did not discuss any provisions of law/rules and method on the issue of time barred on which basis the refund claims become time barred - also, passing of non-speaking order indeed amount to denial of natural justice. Before passing of orders the request for seeking adjournment for personal hearing in the matter should have been considered and speaking order should have been passed by giving proper opportunity of personal hearing in the matter to the appellant and detailing factors leading to rejection of refund claims should have been discussed - case remanded to the adjudicating authority for decide the case afresh by following the principle of natural justice and for passing the speaking order in view of submission of appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand. - 114 to 117 (MAA)CGST/JPR/2020 - - - Dated:- 21-12-2020 - Shri Manzoor Ali Ansari, Additional Commissioner (Appeals) ORDER These tour appeals have been filed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by M/s. Castrol India Ltd.,E-6, C/o Adarsh Marketing, Road No. 1, VKI Area, Jaipur (hereinafter also referred to as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5/-. 2. Brief facts of the case : 2.1 The appellant having GSTIN No. 08AAACC4481E1ZV is engaged in manufacture of lubricating oils and allied preparations falling under Chapter 27 and 34 of the CGST Act, 2017, having their principal place of business at E-6, C/o Adarsh Marketing, Road, No. 1, VKI Area, Jaipur, has filed refund claims under Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017 in respect of inadvertently paid IGST instead of CGST and SGST. Further, the appellant has also filed refund claim of excess paid CGST (including through cash and credit) during the period July, 2017 to March, 2018 in GSTR-3B return for the period and amount mentioned at above in Para-1 of the above Table in column No. (4) (5). 2.2 The adjudicating authority has issued a show cause notices in Form GST-RFD-08, dated 7-4-2020 and 8-4-2020 respectively. Further, the adjudicating authority vide impugned Orders-in-Original all dated 23-4-2020 has rejected the refund claims for the period and amount mentioned at above in Para-1 in column No. (4) and (5) filed by the appellant. 3. Being aggrieved with the impugned orders all dated 23-4-2020, the appellant has filed these appeals on the follo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refundable, he may make an order accordingly and the amount so determined shall be credited to the Fund referred to in section 57. Sub.s - 8 of 54 - Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (5), the refundable amount shall, instead of being credited to the Fund, be paid to the applicant, if such amount is relatable to - (a) refund of tax paid on exports of goods or services or both or on inputs or input services used in making such zero-rated supplies; (b) refund of unutilized input tax credit under sub-section (3); (c) refund of tax paid on a supply which is not provided, either wholly or partially, and for which invoice has not been issued, or where a refund voucher has been issued; (d) refund of tax in pursuance of section 77; (e) the tax and interest, if any, or any other amount paid by the applicant, if he had not passed on the incidence of such tax and interest to any other person or (f) the tax or interest borne by such other class of applicants as the Government may, on the recommendations of the Council, by notification, specify. Appellant reproduce below extract of section 77 :- Section 77 - Tax wrongfully c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en advised to be filed under Rule 89(2)(k) of the CGST Rules, 2017 in order to overcome the technical difficulties on the portal, filed the refund application under Rule 89(2)(k) of CGS7 Rules, 2017 so as to secure the money which legitimately accrued to the appellant. that in view of the above, the adjudicating authority while deciding on the refund application should have taken into consideration the circumstances which led to filing of the refund application under Rule 89(2)(k) of CGST Rules, 2017 which otherwise ought, to have been filed under Rule 89(2)(j) of the CGST Rules, 2017 and should not have adjudicated upon the refund application merely on the basis of refund application filed under Rule 89(2)(k) of CGST Rules, 2017 and ground taken in the notice. that transactions were amended as intra-state transactions and correct tax CGST of ₹ 25,655/- and SGST of ₹ 25,655/ [Total of ₹ 51,312/-], CGST of ₹ 24,788/- and SGST of ₹ 24,789/- [Total of ₹ 49,577/-], CGST of ₹ 43,503/- and SGST of ₹ 43,503/- [Total of ₹ 87,006/-] as required were paid by cash ledger though DRC-03 No. AD0812190015944, dated 18-12-2019. that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting authority. Appellant could not attend hearing due to lockdown mandated by the Government across India on account on Corona virus outbreak (COVID-19). In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner submits that there has been complete breach of the principles of natural justice undisputedly passed impugned order without hearing the petitioner submits that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside solely on the ground that the same has been passed in total breach of the principles of natural justice. that the appellant had paid excess payment of Tax due to oversight which is explained in the below mentioned table : (FY 2017-18) that the appellant tried from Dec., 2019 to Mar., 2020 to file refund application under the correct category intra-State Supply which is subsequently held to be inter-State Supply and vice versa but due to GSTN system issue code not file hence appellant filed the refund claim under excess payment of tax. S. No. Particulars IGST CGST SGST Total A Tax payable as per Table 9, 10 and 11 of G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on which excess IGST is paid which is subsequently amended in GSTR-1 enclosed. that while filing GSTR-9 GSTR-9C for the period 2017-18, appellant had paid correct tax liability under CGST SGST head, basis amendment made in GSTR-1 was paid by cash ledger vide DRC-03 - AD0812190015944, dated 18-12-2019 for ₹ 49,577/-, AD0812190015944, dated 18-12-2019 for ₹ 87,006/-, which is enclosed. that, appellant wish to state that it is undisputed fact that GST has been paid twice against one transaction i.e. first it was paid as IGST then it was paid in GGST SGST. That appellant wish to highlight that authority has collected excess tax which is not supposed to be collected and subsequently rejected stating application is time barred. that even in case where any amount is paid by way of self-assessment in the event any amount has been paid by mistake or through ignorance, it is always open to the appellant to bring it to the notice of the authority concerned and claim refund of the amount wrongly paid. Article 265 of the Constitution of India 47. That authority concerned is also duty bound to refund such amount as retention of such amount would be hit by A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in detail and reiterated the submission already made in the grounds of appeal and requested to decide the case at the earliest. 5. I have carefully gone through the case records and submission made in the appeal memorandum as well as oral submission mace at the time of personal hearing. I find that the adjudicating authority has rejected the refund claims and passed the impugned orders in original all dated 23-4-2020 with the remarks only The refund is time barred and the reply to SCN does not address the issue of delay in filing refund application . 6. I find that the appellant has contested in their appeal memo that the adjudicating authority has passed the impugned Orders-in-Original all dated 23-4-2020 without granting opportunity of personal hearing in the matter, and also without taking into consideration their reply to Show Cause Notices. Further, in the show cause notices i.e. RFD-08 it was directed to the appellant to furnish a reply to SCN within fifteen days from the date of service of the SCN dated 7-4-2020 and also date of personal hearing in the matter was fixed on 15-4-2020 in the show cause notice itself. The appellant further contested that they had submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice to be followed before making the final decision. 10. In view of the above, I find that the adjudicating authority while rejecting the refund claims of the appellant neither considered their defence submission/reply nor first request for seeking adjournment of personal hearing due to COVID-19 lockdown. Moreover, the adjudicating authority did not discuss any provisions of law/rules and method on the issue of time barred on which basis the refund claims become time barred. I also find that passing of non-speaking order indeed amount to denial of natural justice. Before passing of orders their request for seeking adjournment for personal hearing in the matter should have been considered and speaking order should have been passed by giving proper opportunity of personal hearing in the matter to the appellant and detailing factors leading to rejection of refund claims should have been discussed. Else such orders would not be sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, I remand back the case to the adjudicating authority for decide the case afresh by following the principle of natural justice and for passing the speaking order in view of submission of appellant. The appellant is al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
