9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oses of disposal of the present writ petition, we take note of the following salient facts. 4. The petitioner is stated to have applied for refund for the period April 2018 to March 2019 in terms of two applications dated 04 July 2019 and 09 July 2019. Two deficiency memos came to be issued by the respondents while considering the aforesaid applications. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the aforesaid deficiency memos were duly attended to and all material duly supplied. Since the refund was not released even thereafter, the petitioner is stated to have approached the respondents by way of representations dated 13 February 2020 and 27 February 2020. 5. In light of the continued inaction of the respondents, the petitioner had approached this Court in G.S. Industries v. Principal Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax & Ors. W.P.(C) 9321/2020 and which came to be disposed of on 24 November 2020, with the direction that the claim of the petitioner be duly processed and a decision taken thereon within a period of three weeks. 6. The respondents, however, in terms of an order dated 14 December 2020, proceeded to reject the prayer for refund as was made. While originall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant. Brass is an alloy of copper, zinc and tin and the most important component used in manufacturing of gun metal. I find force in appellant's contention as Gun metal, also known as red brass in the United States is the most durable of all metals for the plumbing industry and water pipe applications. Further, I find that it is a well settled law that the SCN must clearly bring out the allegations and contraventions and it must also be supported with relied upon evidences or facts. As such the impugned orders based on conjectures and surmises and do not stand scrutiny of law. There are plethora of judgments wherein it has been pronounced that substantive benefit cannot be denied on ground of technical /procedural lapse. Thus, rejection of subject refund claims by the adjudicating authority in the impugned orders without appreciating the facts of the matter and are not maintainable in law and liable to be set aside. I find that in accordance with the contentions made by the Appellant and the relevant statutes of the said Act, the appeal filed by the appellant holds ground and merits acceptance. Order In view of above discussions, analysis and statutory provisions cite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order of 03 January 2022. The refund claims ultimately came to be sanctioned on 09 June 2023. 10. It becomes pertinent to note that although the respondents finally acceded to the claim of refund, they refused to accord statutory interest, which according to the writ petitioner was payable thereon. Aggrieved by the aforesaid and to that extent, the petitioner preferred yet another appeal on 12 February 2024. That denial of interest in terms of the order of 09 June 2023 came to be upheld in the appeal which was preferred by the writ petitioner and in terms of the aforenoted order of the appellate authority dated 12 February 2024. 11. We are, however, and in the present proceedings not concerned with the validity of that order, since the same forms subject matter of a separate writ petition. 12. The respondents, however, appear to have in the meanwhile instituted an independent appeal seeking to question the order dated 09 June 2023 and which has now come to be allowed in terms of the order impugned dated 24 May 2024. 13. While deciding that appeal, the appellate authority has essentially taken into consideration an order dated 11 December 2023 passed by the Commissioner and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of such deficiencies. In the instant case, the proper officer did not issue any deficiency memo (Form GST RFD-03) and refund order was sanctioned. 13. The refund sanctioning authority failed to obtain and examine the Annexure-B while passing the refund order. The refund sanctioning authority, by not raising the above-mentioned requirement has erred in sanctioning the said refund order in the absence of the said Annexure-B. 14. Therefore, it appears that RFD-06 issued vide Order No. CGST/DW/Rajouri/R-123/ Refund/G.S. Industries/05/2022/86 dated 09.06.2023 passed by the adjudicating authority does not appear to be legal and proper and deserves to be set aside." 14. Basis the above, the appeal of the Department came to be allowed with the appellate authority holding as under:- "7. I find that the respondent stated that as their refund claim pertain to the period of 2017-18 & 2018-19, they were not required to submit Annexure-B. In this context, I find that the Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST dated 18.11.2019 was effective from 26.09.2019 and after the said date, all refund applications filed on common portal are bound by the said Circular. Therefore, the contention of the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
