9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 954X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but in the conclusion at Paragraph No.26 and 27 has dismissed the appeal by simply saying that appellant is not eligible for refund on account of excess payment paid as per provisions of law. Respondent No.1 has noted in the impugned order that one of the grounds of appeal was that Respondent No. 4 while verifying the refund claim has completely mis-interpreted Section 34 (2) of the CGST Act and has applied it erroneously for rejecting the refund claim. Respondent No.1 has also noted that one of the ground is Section 34 (2) of the CGST Act has no relevance to decide the subject application for refund claim of appellants but does not even deal with the same in the impugned order. The order passed by Respondent No. 4 on 1st December 2020 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in accordance with the terms of agreement, TPL did not make any payment to petitioner in respect of the said invoices. It is not disputed that the invoices were neither accounted for in the books of accounts by TPL nor any Input Tax Credit (ITC) was claimed by TPL in respect of the said supply. This fact is corroborated by a letter of undertaking dated 22nd June 2020 issued by TPL stating that it had not claimed any ITC in respect of the said supply. 6. The fact that the invoices amounting to Rs.11,63,578/- was not acknowledged by TPL was brought to the notice of petitioner in the month of February 2020. Petitioner immediately issued credit notes against the said invoices. 7. It is petitioner s case that petitioner is entitled to refund und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 1st December 2020 without giving personal hearing to petitioner. In the impugned order dated 1st December 2020 passed by Respondent No. 4 it is accepted that the credit notes against invoices which were not accepted by TPL has been issued but Respondent No. 4 has proceeded on the basis of it being not within the time prescribed under Sub Section (2) of Section 34 of the CGST Act though he records petitioner s case that the application has been under Section 54 of the CGST Act. The refund application came to be rejected on the ground that the application was not within the time prescribed under Section 34 (2) of the CGST Act. 12. Petitioner preferred an appeal against this order which appeal came to be dismissed by non speaking order date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, we remand the matter to Respondent No. 4 to consider the refund application applying provisions of Section 54 of the CGST Act on the basis of documents already supplied and keeping in mind the certificate issued by TPL has not been disputed earlier and pass the order in accordance with law. 15. The refund application shall be disposed on or before 31st October 2024. Before passing any order, petitioner will be given a personal hearing, notice whereof shall be communicated atleast 5 working days in advance. If the Assessing Officer is going to rely on any judgment/order of any Court or Tribunal, a list thereof shall be made available to petitioner in advance before the personal hearing so that petitioner will be able to deal with th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
