9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18.11.2019, there is no provision for refund of unblocked ITC, as such the refund claim is inadmissible - HELD THAT:- It is not a case that petitioner has debited the tax dues for March, 2021 both through electronic credit ledger which was lying blocked during that period, and through electronic cash ledger through which he had actually paid. Therefore, there was no duplication or twice payment of the tax for the said tax period. The blocking and unblocking of ITC by the SGST authorities between 20.03.2021 and 07.07.2021 were not subject matter of any litigation where the issue of legality or correctness of such blocking was determined. Petitioner by making payment of tax dues through electronic cash ledger for the tax period March, 2021 ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the respondents-State. 2. Petitioner is a registered taxpayer under the Goods Services Tax Department vide registration No.16AAVCS7209P1ZE. During the tax period March, 2021, his electronic credit ledger was blocked on 20.03.2021 by the SGST authorities [Annexure-2]. A notice in GST ASMT-10 was issued upon him on 20.03.2021 after scrutiny of his returns by the SGST authorities [Annexure-18 to the Rejoinder Affidavit]. After escalating the matter with the SGST authorities, the department finally unblocked the credit on 07.07.2021. Meanwhile to discharge the output tax liability, petitioner made payment of the tax dues for the period March, 2021 while filing GSTR-3B returns through electronic cash ledger. Since the input tax credit accumu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected by order dated 21.09.2021 contained in Form-GST-RFD-06 on the ground that as per Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST dated 18.11.2019, there is no provision for refund of unblocked ITC, as such the refund claim is inadmissible [Annexure-13]. Being aggrieved by the order of rejection, petitioner filed an appeal in Form-GST-APL-01 on 11.10.2021 praying for refund along with interest on delayed payment [Annexure 14]. After personal hearing, the appeal was rejected by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Central Excise Customs, Guwahati vide order dated 14.03.2023. Petitioner being aggrieved has assailed the order in appeal dated 14.03.2023 whereby his claim for refund of unutilized input tax credit (ITC) to the extent of 78,20,202/- has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f show that representation for blocking and unblocking of ITC was made with the SGST authorities by the petitioner. Therefore, no violation of Article 265 of the Constitution of India by illegal retention of tax allegedly paid in excess can be made out. Therefore, the claim has rightly been rejected by the authorities. Petitioner s claim does not come under any other grounds as per circular dated 18.11.2019. 4. Counter Affidavit has also been filed by respondents No. 5 6. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents-State has also relied upon the circular dated 18.11.2019 and the order passed by the appellate authority-CGST to submit that there is no provision for refunding ITC if paid in excess in cash to the applicant. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terms of Section 54 of the GST Act; neither any of the conditions stipulated under sub-section (3) thereof were satisfied. Therefore, the claim was rightly rejected by the CGST authorities relying upon the circular dated 18.11.2019 as the case of the petitioner did not fall under any of the categories enumerated thereunder. The writ petition is, therefore, devoid of merit and may be dismissed. 5. Mr. Bezawada, learned counsel for the petitioner, has reiterated his submission in reply. He submits that petitioner has not been able to undertake business after March, 2021 as no such contracts have been awarded to him by the State or Central government. Petitioner is essentially engaged in the business of erection of transmission lines. Though p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lated on account of rate of tax on inputs being higher than the rate of tax on output supplies (other than nil rated or fully exempt supplies), except supplies of goods or services or both as may be notified by the Government on the recommendations of the Council It is not a case that petitioner has debited the tax dues for March, 2021 both through electronic credit ledger which was lying blocked during that period, and through electronic cash ledger through which he had actually paid. Therefore, there was no duplication or twice payment of the tax for the said tax period. The blocking and unblocking of ITC by the SGST authorities between 20.03.2021 and 07.07.2021 were not subject matter of any litigation where the issue of legality or corr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
