9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D-06 was issued without providing him any personal hearing and out of total amount of refund ₹ 9,54,051/- only ₹ 6,27,004/- was paid to him. It would be appropriate to remand back the case to the adjudicating authority to examine the eligibility of ITC in detail and consequently the refund claim of the appellant up to the extent of remaining amount of refund which were not sanctioned. Further, to follow the principle of natural justice by being heard to him and pass the speaking order accordingly - appeal allowed by way of remand. - 06 (MAA)CGST/JPR/2021 - - - Dated:- 11-1-2021 - Shri Manzoor Ali Ansari, Additional Commissioner (Appeals) ORDER This appeal has been filed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by M/s. S.K. Solvex Pvt. Ltd., A-20, Subhash Nagar, Jaipur-302001 (hereinafter also referred to as the appellant ) against the Order-in-Original No. ZS0804200155582, dated 9-4-2020 (hereinafter called as the impugned order ) passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods Services Tax Division-B, Jaipur (hereinafter called as the adjudicating authority ). 2. Brief facts of the case : 2.1 The appellant is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4/8-4-2019 1062546/- 53127/- 5/9-4-2019 1220698/- 61035/- 6/9-4-2019 1050773/- 52538/- 7/9-4-2019 1060230/- 53010/- 8/11-4-2019 1060915/- 53046/- Total 6540968/- 327047/- (b) The appellant had purchased mustard seeds from M/s. Astha Trading Company; as per details shown as above in the month of April, 2019. The goods were delivered at the factory of the appellant. Proper supply of goods were effected by M/s. Astha Trading Company as it evident from the fact that following documents were executed for dispatching the goods from Sitapur to Jaipur listed as below : (i) Tax Invoice, (ii) E-Way Bill, (iii) Mandi Receipt of sitapur, (iv) G.R. of Transporter, (v) Weighment Slip of Dharmkanata of goods at Jaipur. (c) The appellant made the payment of above-mentioned invoices through proper banking channel. ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cancelled with effect from 5-12-2018 which is wrong and against the law of GST. Hence the order passed as above is bad in the eye of law, deserves to be set aside, and refund of ₹ 3,27,047/- is deserves to be allow. (4) Further we wish to bring your kind attention to the Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, input tax credit can be availed subject to payment of tax by vendor, the extract of the same has been reproduced below :- Subject to Sections 41 and 43A of the CGST Act, 2017, the tax charged in respect of such supply has been actually paid to the Government, either in cash or through utilization of Input Tax Credit admissible in respect of said supply. However Section 16(2)(c) ibid is subject to Section 41 of the CGST Act, 2017. Section 41 of the CGST Act, 2017, provides for provisional availment of credit, where it states as under :- Every registered person shall, subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed, be entitled to take the credit of eligible input tax, as self-assessed, in his return and such amount shall be credited on a provisional basis to his electronic credit ledger. Thus, to conclude, even ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. 5. I have carefully gone through the case records and written submission in the appeal memo as well as additional submission received through e-mail dated 17-12-2020. Accordingly, I proceed to decide the case. 6. On going through the submission of appellant and RFD-06 I find that the out of total amount of refund of ₹ 9,54,051/- only ₹ 6,27,004/- have been sanctioned by the adjudicating authority. Aggrieved with the said order, appellant filed appeal for remaining amount of refund of ₹ 3,27,047/-. 7. Further, on going through the submission of appeal I find that the said refund was filed by the appellant on account of input tax credit accumulated due to Inverted Tax Structure. On examining of said refund claim adjudicating authority issued notice to the appellant in Form GST RFD-08, dated 7-4-2020 wherein he mentioned that it appears that refund application is liable to be rejected on account of wrong ITC claim up to the amount inadmissible ₹ 3,27,047/- and it has mentioned in remarks of RFD-08 that amount of claim in with reference of invoice of M/s. Astha Trading Company does not appear admissible, since M/s. Astha Trading Company date of regi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailable to the applicant electronically and the provisions of sub-rule (1) shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to the extent refund is allowed : Provided that no application for refund shall be rejected without giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard. As per Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017 Eligibility and conditions for taking input tax credit. - (1) Every registered person shall, subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed and in the manner specified in section 49, be entitled to take credit of input tax charged on any supply of goods or services or both to him which are used or intended to be used in the course or furtherance of his business and the said amount shall be credited to the electronic credit ledger of such person. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, no registered person shall be entitled to the credit of any input tax in respect of any supply of goods or services or both to him unless, - (a) he is in possession of a tax invoice or debit note issued by a supplier registered under this Act, or such other tax paying documents as may be prescribed; (b) he has received the goods or services or bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
