9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for the Department to prefer an appeal has been extended till three months after the date on which the Tribunal is constituted. It is not necessary for this Court to examine the question whether appeals if and when preferred would be within time. Suffice it to state that the respondent has not secured any order which would, in any manner, stay the operation of the appellate orders passed by the Appellate Authority - Clearly, it is not open for the respondents to ignore the orders passed by the Appellate Authority merely on the ground that it has decided to appeal those orders. It would be debilitating to the rule of law, if the respondents are permitted to withhold implementation of the orders passed by the authority in this manner. Petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case that on account of an inverted duty structure, he could not fully utilise his input tax credit and consequently, the same had accumulated to an aggregate figure of ₹74,02,337/- for the period in question (May, 2019 to December, 2019). 5. In view of the above, the petitioner filed separate applications (six in number) for claiming refund. The details of these applications are as under: Date of filing of refund claim Period Amount (in Rs.) 09.12.2020 May, 2019 8,89,402/- 23.12.2020 June, 2019 7,39,443/- 07.01.2021 July, 2019 10,62,596/- 07.01.2021 Aug, 2019 11,12,574/- 22.01.2021 Sept, 2019 9,72,486/- 16.03.2021 Oct Dec, 2019 26,25,836/- Total 74,02,337/- 6. The petitioner s request for refund was not processed and during the peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on his business from the relevant premises during the material time and had shifted its premises to Haryana thereafter. The Appellate Authority also found that there was no doubt as to the genuineness of the said claims and the petitioner was a registered person at the time of filing of his applications for refund. Thus, the provisions of Section 54(3) of the Act which enable only a registered person to make a claim for refund, did not in any manner disentitle the petitioner for claiming the refunds. 10. Notwithstanding that the petitioner had succeeded before the Appellate Authority, the respondents did not process the petitioner s claim for refunds. 11. On 29.09.2021, the petitioner filed another application for refund (in Form GST RFD 01 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st deficiency memos are issued and thereafter, the applications were rejected. 17. It is in the aforesaid context that the petitioner has filed the present petition. 18. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit once again reiterating its stand that the petitioner s registration is liable to be cancelled as the petitioner was not found functioning at the given address. According to the respondent, if the petitioner s registration is cancelled, the petitioner would no longer be a registered person and therefore, cannot apply for refund under Section 54(3) of the GST Act. 19. It is also stated that the concerned authority has reviewed the orders passed by the Appellate Authority and has directed that an appeals be filed challenging the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
