9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1638X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erms of Section 107 (11) of the CGST Act, the appellate authority is required to decide the question in issue and cannot remand the matter to the adjudicating authority. In the present case, although, the appellate authority has faulted the adjudicating authority in not addressing the question of reconciliation statement, the appellate authority has also not addressed the same. It is considered apposite to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the appellate authority for consideration afresh - petition disposed off by way of remand. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA For the Petitioner Through: Ms Gunjan Richharia, Advocate For the Respondents Through: Ms Garima Sachdeva, SPC Mr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 107 (2) of the CGST Act. The reviewing authority concluded that the refund of ₹12,04,443/- was wrongly sanctioned to the petitioner and directed that appeal be filed against the order-in-original dated 30.12.2022. Accordingly, in terms of the review order, the Revenue preferred an appeal against the order-in-original, under Section 107 (3) of the CGST Act, before the appellate authority. According to the Revenue, the refund to the extent of ₹12,04,443/- was liable to be rejected on account of mismatch in ITC as per GSTR-2B and GSTR-3B. 6. The petitioner was issued the Show Cause Notice dated 06.07.2023 by the appellate authority and the petitioner responded to the same by the letter dated 26.12.2023. In its response, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d have been granted. Leaving the question of verification open and granting refund without the requisite exercise makes the impugned order erroneous and unsustainable. 9. In view of the aforementioned discussion and findings and after going through the judgement as discussed supra, I am of the considered view that the adjudicating authority has erred in allowing refund of ITC amounting to Rs. 12,04,443/- out of the total refund claim of Rs. 68,34, 172/- which is liable to be recovered from the respondent. The impugned order passed by the adjudicating authority is neither legal nor maintainable in law and as such the same are liable to be set aside up to that extent. Accordingly, I pass the following order: 7. It is apparent from the above, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
