9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 623X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is the date of receipt of payment in convertible foreign exchange, as per Explanation (2) to sub-section (14) of Section 54. Even as regards FIRCs issued in April 2018, if the benefit of the above notification is extended to the petitioner, the refund application dated 04.09.2020 would be within the two year period, which is to be computed from the relevant date, as per sub-section (1) of Section 54 of the CGST Act. Apart from concluding that the claim is barred by limitation, no other reason has been mentioned in the appellate order for rejecting the refund claim of Rs. 7,34,732/-. For reasons set out, the said conclusion in the appellate order is unsustainable. Hence, the impugned order is quashed and, as a corollary, the 1st respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner replied to the notice on 08.10.2020 and stated that it was unable to function normally on account of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the petitioner requested that the delay be condoned. Since the adjudicating authority did not accept the request of the petitioner, the petitioner assailed the order of the adjudicating authority by way of an appeal. The appellate authority concluded that the export turnover for the period running from April 2018 to August 2018 cannot be considered because the same is time barred. Consequently, only the export turnover from September 2018 to March 2019 was considered in the appellate order. The present appeal arises in the said facts and circumstances. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner invi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 9,22,424/- was classified as a wrong ITC claim. In the remarks column of the show cause notice, the break up is provided. An ITC claim of Rs. 1,33,207/- was considered ineligible because it pertains to capital goods; a further sum of Rs. 28,050/- was considered ineligible because services were received by an unregistered branch in Bangalore; and a further sum of Rs. 54,485/- was rejected on the ground that it was not reflected in GSTR 2A. If these three sums are added, it aggregates to Rs. 2,15,742/- which corresponds to the amount the petitioner agreed to exclude from the refund claim. Therefore, the sum of Rs. 7,34,732/-, which was claimed by the petitioner, corresponds to amounts disallowed as time barred because the said claim pertai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omputation of the period for limitation for filing a refund application under Section 54 of the CGST Act. The relevant date is the date of receipt of payment in convertible foreign exchange, as per Explanation (2) to sub-section (14) of Section 54. Even as regards FIRCs issued in April 2018, if the benefit of the above notification is extended to the petitioner, the refund application dated 04.09.2020 would be within the two year period, which is to be computed from the relevant date, as per sub-section (1) of Section 54 of the CGST Act. 8. Apart from concluding that the claim is barred by limitation, no other reason has been mentioned in the appellate order for rejecting the refund claim of Rs. 7,34,732/-. For reasons set out above, the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
