TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 578X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ough electronic cash ledger in the month of March 2023. The petitioner has already paid the tax on outward supplies for month of January 2023 amount of Rs.55,36,134/-which included the inward supply liable to reverse charge which was not shown separately. In fact, the petitioner was liable to pay Rs. 54,42,332.88 on inward supply liable to reverse charge in the month of January 2023 - the petitioner is entitled to refund of Rs. 53,08,494/- which was paid in excess along with return in Form GSTR-3B for the month of March, 2023. As the respondent-authority has not given any reason while rejecting the refund claimed by holding that there is excess payment, on going through the facts which are placed on record and it would be a futile exercise to remand the matter back to the respondent-authorities as it is apparent from the facts of the case and in view of the Circular No. 26/2017 that the petitioner is entitled to the refund claimed - Petition allowed by way of remand. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nth of January 2023, the consultant of the petitioner erroneously had shown the payment of GST on sale of cotton through electronic cash ledger as output tax liability instead of bifurcating it between the liability of the tax on reverse charge basis on purchases of cotton from agriculturist and output tax liability. Therefore, no tax was shown to be paid on reverse charge basis nor any input tax credit was claimed in respect of such tax. 5.4 It is the case of the petitioner that there was an error made by the consultant as the liability on purchases on reverse charge basis was not admitted and paid and effectively, the tax was paid including the liability of reverse charge basis on the entire output sales and output tax liability was discharged through electronic cash ledger. 5.5 The petitioner realised the error in the month of March 2023 but, in absence of any mechanism for rectification of return for the month of January 2023, the petitioner showed the liability of reverse charge tax to be paid for the month of January 2023 on the purchases in Form GSTR-3B filed for the month of March 2023 and accordingly the petitioner paid higher amount of tax of Rs. 53,08,494/- through ele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arch,2023 at Annexure B (page 19) to point out that for the month of March 2023, outward taxable supplies was shown Rs. 8,74,36,457.25 for which, tax payable was Rs. 43,71,816/- after considering the reverse charge inward supplies liable to reverse charge for the said month. However, the petitioner paid total amount of Rs. 96,80,310/- through electronic cash ledger to correct the error of not showing the reverse charge liability for the month of January 2023. It was therefore submitted that there was an excess payment of Rs. 53,08,494/- (Rs. 96,80,310 - Rs. 43,71,816). 6.1 It was submitted that the petitioner, in order to comply with the provisions of the GST Act on realizing the mistake committed in the return for the month of January 2023, has made the payment of reverse charge liability in the month of March,2023. It was submitted that respondent No. 3 has passed impugned order dated 05.12.2023 without assigning any reason and without considering such details, only on the ground that there is no excess payment was seen in the refund claim period. It was submitted that on scrutiny of the returns along with explanation tendered by the petitioner in the refund application, it is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h-2023. It is undisputed that the said amount is available with the Petitioner as input tax credit. Hence, no question of refund arises. 12. Without prejudice to all that has been stated and submitted hereinabove, I submit that a similar issue came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs. Bharti Airtel Limited and others (SLP No. 8654 of 2020). In the said matter, the concerned Hon'ble High Court was pleased to read down paragraph 4 of the Circular No. 26/26/2017-GST dated 29.12.2017 issued by the Commissioner (GST), to the extent it restricted the rectification of Form GSTR-3B in respect of the period in which the error had occurred. The Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe as follows: "47, Significantly, the registered person is not denied of the opportunity to rectify omission or incorrect particulars, which he could do in the return to be furnished for the month or quarter in , which such omission or incorrect particulars are noticed. Thus, it is not a case of denial of availment of ITC as such. If at all, it is only a postponement of availment of ITC. The ITC amount remains intact in the electronic credit ledger, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard supply 11,07,22,685.63 8,74,36,457.25 Inward supply liable to reverse charge 10,88,46,615.50 8,47,59,522.75 9. Therefore, the inward supply liable to reverse charge for both the months i.e. January and March 2023 would be Rs. 19,36,06,13,825/- [10,88,46,615.50 + 8,47,59,522.75]. The petitioner has therefore, paid the tax on the inward supplies of Rs. 19,36,06,13,825/- amounting to Rs.96,80,310/- through electronic cash ledger in the month of March 2023. The petitioner has already paid the tax on outward supplies for month of January 2023 amount of Rs.55,36,134/-which included the inward supply liable to reverse charge which was not shown separately. In fact, the petitioner was liable to pay Rs. 54,42,332.88 on inward supply liable to reverse charge in the month of January 2023. 10. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to refund of Rs. 53,08,494/- which was paid in excess along with return in Form GSTR-3B for the month of March,2023. 11. With regard to issue of entertaining the petition, we are of the opinion that as the respondent-authority has not given any reason while rejecting the refund claimed by holding that there is excess payment, we have gone through th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|