9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 492X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CGST Act, 2017 cannot be entertained by the respondent. The option available to the petitioner was to request its customer/client M/s.Caterpillar India Private Limited to issue an appropriate credit notes to neutrilize the alleged excess payment of GST while generating and issuing invoices dated 01.11.2017 details of which was captured in their regular return and tax was paid - refund claim filed by the petitioner is clearly barred under the limitation prescribed under Section 54(1) of the respective enactments read with explanation (h). Petition dismissed. - W.P.No12105 of 2020 And W.M.P.No.14844 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 21-12-2021 - Hon'ble Mr.Justice C.Saravanan For the Petitioner : Mr.Joseph Prabakar For the Respondent : Ms.Anu Ganesan Junior Panel Counsel ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Junior Panel Counsel for the respondent. I have perused the records and the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Junior Panel Counsel for the respondent. I have also perused the circular dated 29.12.2017 which was furnished today by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The facts are no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner of Customs (Exports), Chennai , 2018 (8) G.S.T.L. 47 (Mad.) vi. Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Chennai Vs BPL Limited , 2010 (259) E.L.T. 526 (Mad.) vii. Union of India Vs Kirloskar Pneumatic Company , 1996 (84) E.L.T. 401 (SC). viii. State of Haryana Vs Hindustan Machine Tools Limited , (2015) 328 E.L.T. 27 (P H). 8. The learned Junior Panel Counsel defending the stand of the respondent submits that the petitioner has neither filed any records to substantiate that the tax was paid on an earlier occasion between June, July, August and September 2017 nor has produced any proof to substantiate that the said customer namely M/s.Caterpillar India Private Limited had not availed Input Tax Credit based on the invoice raised by the petitioner. 9. The learned Junior Panel Counsel for the respondent further submits that the limitation under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the CGST Act) also makes it clear that even if tax was paid by mistake on account of non-supply of any service either wholly or partially, for which no invoices were raised or issued or where a refund voucher had been issued cannot be ign ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RM GSTR-2 and FORM GSTR-3 for the month of July 2017 to March 2018 would be worked out by a Committee of officers, the system based reconciliation prescribed under Circular No.7/7/2017-GST, dated 1st September 2017 can only be operationalized after the relevant notification is issued. The said circular is therefore kept in abeyance till such time. 3.3 The common errors while submitting FORM GSTR-3B and the steps needed to be taken to rectify the same are provided in the table annexed herewith. The registered person needs to decide at which stage of filing of FORM GSTR-3B he is currently at and also the error committed by him. The corresponding column in the table provides the steps to be followed by him to rectify such error . 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to illustrations given in Paragraph 8 which reads as under:- 8. Stage 1 Confirmed Submission Company B had reported an inter-State sale but realized that the same sale was counted twice and hence was not to be reported. But the return form was already submitted and no change could be done to the liabilities. What can company B do? In this case, Company B has the option to u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt date means- (a) in the case of goods exported out of India where a refund of tax paid is available in respect of goods themselves or, as the case may be, the inputs or input services used in such goods, (i) if the goods are exported by sea or air, the date on which the ship or the aircraft in which such goods are loaded, leaves India; or (ii) if the goods are exported by land, the date on which such goods pass frontier; or (iii) if the goods are exported by post, the date of despatch of goods by the Post Office concerned to a place outside India; (b)...... (c).... (d).... (e)..... (f) ... (g) ... (h) in any other case, the date of payment of tax. 17. In this case, the tax was paid on 20.12.2017. Thus, the refund claim if it was to be filed ought to have been filed by the petitioner within the period of limitation prescribed under the Act. The refund claim should have been filed on or before 19.12.2019. However, refund claim was filed only on 30.05.2020. The refund claim was thus beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017. 18. In fact, if there was a wrong entry as was argued, the petitioner should hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
