9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CGST Act') directing the petitioner to deposit INR 3,13,68,322/- together with interest and penalty by alleging violation of Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CGST Rules') in respect of the refund of integrated taxes sanctioned on export of goods for the period FY 2018-19 to 2020-21. Petitioner is challenging the aforesaid notice inter alia on the ground of limitation prescribed under sub- section (10) of Section 73 of the CGST Act. 02. Petitioner is a private limited company having GSTIN No. 23AABCE5821H1Z0 (MP registration) engaged in the business of formulation, development and contract research & de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e it was found that the noticee/petitioner had claimed inadmissible refund in violation of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules. Despite refund of the aforesaid amount, the noticee has not discharged the liability of interest in respect of the erroneous refund of paid back amounting to Rs. 3,13,68,323/-. In view of the above, impugned show-cause notice dated 20.08.2024 has been issued under Section 73(1) of the CGST Act 2017 read with Section 20 of the IGST Act 2017 and respective State and Union Territory GST Act, 2017 by the adjudicating authority for illegally availing the refund of IGST amounting to Rs. 3,13,68,323/- with interest under Section 50 of the CGST Act and penalty under Section 122(2)(a) of the CGST Act. A similar notice dated 02.08 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in case of Malladi Drugs and Pharma Ltd. vs. Union of India and Anr. reported in (2020) 12 SCC 808 and Division Bench of this Court in case of Jiji Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in 2016 SCC Online MP 2543 . The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all these grounds before the proper officer and thereafter the remedy of appeal is also available to the petitioner. 06. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 07. The main ground on which the petitioner has challenged the impugned notice is the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 73(10) of the CGST Act 2017 which is reproduced below : ''(10) The proper officer shall issue the order under sub-section (9) within three years from the due date for furni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the petitioner for submission of details of import and export for the FY 2017-18 to 2020-21. Only after receipt of the aforesaid notice from the Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch, petitioner deposited the entire refund of the integrated tax from 23.11.2021 to 23.10.2022 i.e. Rs. 3,13,68,322.77 in respect of the MP registration. Thereafter Rule 86(4B) of the CGST Rules was introduced vide Notification No. 14/2022-Central Tax dated 05.07.2022 allowing recredit of input tax credit pertaining to the amount paid back for contravention of Rule 96 of the CGST Rules. The respondent No. 2 issued notice initiating independent investigation against the petitioner in relation to the refund of integrated tax for the period in question. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
