9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 591X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oper and incorrect and violative of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct Respondent No. 2 to grant refund to the Petitioner. 3. The facts are as under: i. The Petitioner is a Company registered under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ['C.G.S.T. Act'] read with Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ['A.P.G.S.T. Act'] within the State of Andhra Pradesh. ii. The Petitioner is primarily engaged in business of providing Express Courier Services to Units situated in Special Economic Zone ['SEZ']. The period in dispute is between April, 2018 to July, 2018 and August, 2018 to March, 2019. The Petitioner made supplies to SEZ Unit, which are to be treated as zero rated supplies and, as such, the Petitioner is entitled for refund of input taxes paid, while making zero rated supply, in view of Section 16 of Integrated Goods and Service Tax, 2017, ['I.G.S.T. Act']. iii. An application for refund came to be made under Section 54 of C.G.S.T Act read with Rule 89 of Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 ['C.G.S.T. Rules']. The said application has to be made within a period of two years from the relevant time, but, due t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - [Rs.86,27,371/- in W.P. No. 2478 of 2022] on the ground of non-submission of endorsement certificate. Challenging the same, the Petitioner filed an Appeal No. 3/2021, dated 05.01.2021, [Appeal No. 04/2021, dated 29.01.2021] before Respondent No. 1 in terms of Section 107 of the C.G.S.T. Act. In the said Appeals, the Petitioner explained the difficulty faced in obtaining the endorsement certificate and requested Respondent No. 1 to set-aside the refund rejection order. vii. Pending Appeals, the Petitioner requested the Development Commissioner of SEZ to help in obtaining endorsement certificates. Finally, the Petitioner was able to obtain endorsement certificate, dated 11.01.2021, from the specified officer of Ramky Pharmacity India Limited, for a substantial portion of the services provided to SEZ Units for authorized operations. On receipt of the said certificate, the Petitioner submitted the same to Respondent No. 1 by way of additional material on 10.02.2021. The Petitioner attended the hearing on 13.07.2021 through its consultants, wherein, the grounds mentioned earlier, were reiterated. Without taking into consideration the submissions made, the Appeals came to be rejected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madanlal V. Shyamlal (2002) 1 SCC 535 in support of his plea. (ii) Sri. Karan Talwar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, further submits that the Order impugned in the Writ Petitions is in violation of principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. According to him, the endorsement certificate could not be filed along with the refund application, as the Petitioner could not secure the same by then and after causing due diligence, he could secure the certificate pending appeal and, as such, filed those certificate in appeal. Therefore, the reason given for not filing the endorsement certificate along with the refund application within the time prescribed cannot be brushed aside, more so, when the statue provides that the Petitioner is entitled for refund under Section 24, and Rule 112 prescribe filing of application even in appeal. (iii) In view of the above and having regard to the finding given by the Appellate Authority that accepting document at a belated stage is the discretion of the authority, submits that the Order under challenge requires to be set-aside and consequently the matter be rema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its remedies. 10. Insofar as the plea of the Respondents that the Petitioner ought to have obtained endorsement certificate much prior to arrival of Covid in India, it is to be noted here that the Petitioner herein has two years time to claim refund and the Petitioner could not have anticipated that the pandemic will sweep the entire country during that period. Therefore, non obtaining endorsement certificate prior to Covid pandemic cannot be a ground to reject the claim. As stated earlier, the Petitioner could not have anticipated the situation and when it thought of making an application within the time prescribed, the entire country was engulfed with pandemic. Therefore, as contended by the Petitioner, its efforts to obtain endorsement certificate within the time prescribed, proved futile, cannot be brushed aside. 11. Coming to acceptance of additional evidence pending appeal, it would be just and proper to extract Rule 112 of the C.G.S.T. Rules, which reads as under: "112. Production of Additional Evidence before the Appellate Authority or the Appellate Tribunal - (1) The appellant shall not be allowed to produce before the Appellate Authority or the Appellate Tribunal a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rties were produced with explanation for not producing the same, there was no reason for the assessing officer to reject the same. 17. Fresh confirmation letters were only in continuation of previous ones already produced. They were produced only in compliance of requirement on which the Assessing Officer based his rejection. They were, as such, not new evidence. The refusal to permit them was mechanical and suffered from non application of mind. The assessee's case for permission to produce such additional evidence clearly fell under clause (b) of sub Rule (1) of 46A that he was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the confirmation letters, which he was called upon to produce by the Assessing Officer. Those confirmation letters were in support of the ground of assessee's appeal, therefore, it was covered under sub-clause (c) also." 13. Further, Rule 112(4) of C.G.S.T. Rules postulate that, nothing contained in the said Rule shall affect the power of the Appellate Authority or the Appellate Tribunal to direct production of any document, or examination of any witness, to enable it to dispose of the appeal. In fact, Section 107(11) of C.G.S.T. Act contemplate that, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l, 2018 to July, 2018. That being so, the certificates related to supplies made to other supplies, such as Pokarna Engineered Stone etc., could not be produced by the appellant even now. Thus, the certificates are found to be deficient in that they do not cover the entire period involved in the claims nor did they cover all the supplies made during the material period to all the recipients." 15. Insofar as these findings are concerned, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that, no opportunity was given to explain the reasons given for rejecting the claim for the period April, 2018 to July, 2018 and August, 2018 to March, 2019. In fact, he would submit that, had an opportunity been given or a notice was given asking the Petitioner to explain, it would have explained to the Appellate Authority that the claim made was relevant. The said argument of the learned counsel cannot be brushed aside. 16. For the above reasons, the request of the Petitioner to accept the endorsement certificate, dated 11.01.2021, of the specified officer of Ramky Pharmacity India Limited, is allowed. 17. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are allowed setting aside the impugned Order, dated 30. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
