9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 529X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be a ground for rejecting the petitioner s refund applications unless it is established that the petitioner has not received the goods or paid for them. In the present case, there is little material to support any such allegations. In ON QUEST MERCHANDISING INDIA PVT. LTD., SUVASINI CHARITABLE TRUST, ARISE INDIA LIMITED, VINAYAK TREXIM, K.R. ANAND, APARICI CERAMICA, ARUN JAIN (HUF) , DAMSON TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., SOLVOCHEM, M/S. MEENU TRADING CO., MAHAN POLYMERS VERSUS GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI ORS. COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAXES, DELHI AND ORS. [ 2017 (10) TMI 1020 - DELHI HIGH COURT] , a Coordinate Bench of this Court had held that t he purchasing dealer is being asked to do the impossible, i.e. to anticipate the selling dea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2021, respectively were dismissed. 2. Although the petitioner has a statutory right to appeal the impugned order, it is not possible for the petitioner to avail the said remedy as the Tribunal has not been constituted. 3. The petitioner had filed its refund application dated 11.09.2020 (in Form GST-RFD 01) seeking refund of the unutilized Input Tax Credit (hereafter ITC ) amounting to ₹72,03,961/-, which comprised of Integrated Goods and Service Tax (hereafter IGST ) amounting to ₹19,53,062/- and Cess of ₹52,50,899/-. The petitioner also filed another refund application dated 12.09.2020 (in Form GST-RFD 01) claiming refund of ITC of ₹12,40,270/- comprising of IGST of ₹3,37,174/- and Cess amountin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tters to respondent no.2 requesting for an early disposal of his refund applications. However, his requests were not acceded to. 9. In the meantime, the petitioner became aware of the allegations that its supplier, M/s Shruti Exports, had issued fake invoices and its ITC was blocked. The said supplier had moved the High Court of Calcutta by filing a writ petition seeking unblocking of its Electronic Credit Ledger (hereafter ECL ). 10. Show cause notice dated 04.06.2021 was issued by respondent no.2 to the petitioner proposing to reject the petitioner s refund applications. This show cause notice indicated that respondent no.2 had sought a report regarding legitimacy and genuineness of the export of goods from the Customs Station, Kol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at an investigation had been initiated against the supplier (M/s Shruti Exports) from where the petitioner had allegedly procured the goods. The said order indicated that respondent no.2 had received information that M/s Shruti Exports (GST No. 19AFRPG5814N1ZS) had issued the following two invoices to the petitioner in the month of August, 2020: (i) Invoice No. SE/32/20.21 dated 29.08.2020; and (ii) Invoice No. SE/33/20.21 dated 29.08.2020 14. Although it was confirmed that the said invoices were reflected on the AIO System, the refund applications were rejected for the reason that it appeared that they are to be part of a supply chain involving fake Input Tax Credit . 15. The petitioner appealed the said orders rejecting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 19. The respondents filed a counter affidavit enclosing therewith a letter dated 16.04.2021 issued by the CGST Authorities, Kolkata in response to the request of respondent no.2 verifying the existence and genuineness of suppliers. The said letter indicates that M/s Shruti Exports was found to be an existing dealer and its sole proprietor was also a Director of M/s BVN Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Both the dealers were found existing at Room No.464, 4th Floor, 138 Biplabi Rashbehari Basu Road, Kolkata-700001. It was found that M/s Shruti Exports had availed of CGST and SGST totaling ₹1,35,21,489/- and Cess amounting to ₹21,76,132/- from the taxpayers against whom cases were booked for issuing fake invoices. The said letter set out a ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applications for refund cannot be denied. 23. There is merit in the petitioner s contention that it is not required to examine the affairs of its supplying dealers. The allegations of any fake credit availed by M/s Shruti Exports cannot be a ground for rejecting the petitioner s refund applications unless it is established that the petitioner has not received the goods or paid for them. In the present case, there is little material to support any such allegations. 24. In On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi Ors.: 2017 SCC OnLine Del 11286 , a Coordinate Bench of this Court had referred to various authorities and observed as under: 39. Applying the law explained in the above decisions, it can b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
