9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . There is no doubt that the appellant had not got the opportunity to be heard as well as to defend his case. Therefore in the instant case, it is found that principle of natural justice has not been followed properly. Further, ongoing through the column No. 3 of Order-in-Original dated 10-12-2020 (RFD-06) it is found that the whole amount of refund claim mentioned as inadmissible but in the order portion neither the rejection amount has been mentioned nor any provisions/acts/rules has been mentioned by which refund has been rejected. Order-in-Original is non-speaking, non-reasoned order and proper opportunity to be heard has also not been given as per Rule 92(3) of CGST Rules, 2017 to the appellant. Therefore, it is not possible at t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting to ₹ 12,63,847/- under Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017. 2.2 On examination of refund application, the adjudicating authority has issued a Show Cause Notice vide reference No. ZU0811200269756, dated 23-11-2020. in Form GST RFD-08, dated 23-11-2020, liable to be rejected and given a Remark : Reference of Export invoices has not been mentioned on the FIRC and amount of the export invoice does not match with export invoice, hence not admissible and HSN/SAC is mandatory as per Circular No. 135/05/2020-GST, dated 31-3-2020. 2.3 Accordingly, the adjudicating authority has passed the Order-in-Original No. ZX0812200116424, dated 10-12-2020 in Form GST RFD-06 and rejected the refund claim amounting to ₹ 12,63,847/- and also given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Refund Rejection Order : The Learned Assistant Commissioner passed the following Order No. ZX0812200116424, dated 10-12-2020 : I hereby reject an amount of INR (O) to M/s. Punch Tech India Pvt. Ltd. Having GSTIN 08AAHCP3657N1ZS under sub-section ( ) of section ( ) of the Act/under section - of the Act. Remarks : Reference of export invoices has not been mentioned on the FIRC and amount of the export invoice does not match with export invoice, hence cannot be verifiable, therefore refund claim appears to be not admissible. (These grounds are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other) It is most respectfully submitted that the above impugned Refund Rejection Order No. ZX0812200116424, dated 10-12-2020 (received on 28-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the FIRC. Only the exporter name and amount in foreign currency is mentioned in FIRC which matches with the FC amount in export invoice. Even then the appellant approached its bank and got the FIRC issued in other format but even in that revised format FIRC does not contain the export invoice no. Therefore this is no fault on the part of the appellant. The appellant is dependent on the practice followed by banks as per their procedure. The copies of old format FIRCs and new format FIRCs are enclosed herewith. The next remark that the amount of export invoice does not match with export invoice does not seem to carry any meaning as any amount mentioned in one document will definitely match with the same document. However even if w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hrough video conference was held on 1-4-2021. Sh. Suresh Agrawal, Authorized Representative of the appellant appeared for personal hearing. Sh. Agrawal during personal hearing reiterated the grounds of appeal and emphasized that the order is grossly bad in law and rejected the refund without mentioning the provisions of laws and without mentioning amount of rejection of refund. The order is passed without following the principle of natural justice and he did not receive the show cause notice as well as personal hearing letter. In view of above, he requested for early decision. 6. I have gone through the facts of the case and the written submissions made by the appellant in their appeal memo as well as also oral submission at the time of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the FIRC issued in other format but even in that revised format FIRC does not contain the export invoice no. therefore, no fault of the appellant. The appellant stated that amount mentioned in foreign currency in export invoice does match with the amount in foreign currency in the FIRC for all the 3 months of April to June, 2020. 10. On going through the case records, I find that in the instant case though the message was conveyed to the appellant through GST portal regarding issuance of SCN (RFD-08) and rejection of his refund claim, but the appellant could not view/download the copy of show cause notice (RFD-08) as well as Order-in-Original (RFD-06) through GST portal hence, he could not reply to show cause notice as well as could no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
