9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 532X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ented - It cannot be accepted that it is open for the respondent to raise any deficiency memo after a tax payer has succeeded in appellate proceedings. Undisputedly, the petitioner had filed its application in the requisite form (GST RFD-01) along with the necessary declarations and undertaking. A tax payer may file a fresh online application to trigger the processing of its refund, however, it is not open for the respondents to raise further deficiency memos regarding the same - it cannot be accepted that the petitioner s refund can be withheld merely on the ground that the respondent proposes to review the Orders-in-Appeal dated 31.01.2023. However, it is clarified that the disbursement of the refund in favour of the petitioner would not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il, 2021 to September, 2021 (iii) Pass any other order(s) as this Hon ble Court may deem fit and more appropriate in order to grant relief to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner claims refund of Input Tax Credit (hereafter ITC ), in respect of certain exports made under Letter of Undertaking (hereafter LUT ). 3. The petitioner s claim for refund relates to exports effected during the period January, 2021 to September, 2021. 4. The petitioner had filed two applications pertaining to the said Zero Rated Supplies under Section 54(3)(i) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter the CGST Act ). 5. The respondent had acknowledged the receipt of the said claims, however, the said acknowledgment was not uploaded online and was not pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for refund on the basis of the Orders-in-Appeal dated 31.01.2023. According to the respondent, the said application was deficient as it was not accompanied by an undertaking to the effect that the petitioner would refund the sanctioned amount along with interest in case it is found that the requirements of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act read with Section 42(2) of the CGST Act, were not complied with in respect of the amount refunded. 13. It is material to note that the deficiency memo did not specifically indicate the said deficiency. It merely stated that supporting documents attached are incomplete . Undisputedly, the petitioner had provided the copy of the Orders-in-Appeal on the basis of which it claimed the refunds. 14. In view of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no question of the respondent now raising any deficiency or once again requiring the petitioner to furnish any undertaking or declaration which it had already done at the initial stage. 20. We are unable to accept that a taxpayer is required to make repeated applications for seeking a refund. Once a tax payer has made a claim for refund, the same is required to be processed in accordance with law. If the refund is rejected for any reason and the said party prevails before the appellate authority, it is not open for the respondents to desist from processing the claims on any such technical grounds. The circular dated 03.10.2019 sets out a convenient procedure for moving the concerned authorities, and must be construed as such. 21. Thus, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
