Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + Commissioner GST - 2021 (8) TMI Commissioner This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 50 - Commissioner - GSTRefund claim - duty paid on supply of goods to SEZ units - rejection of refund on the ground that there is no payment of tax in Govt. Account, the refund of tax related to supply of Goods to SEZ Units - opportunity of personal hearing - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Opportunity of personal hearing has been given but the appellant did not attend the same. The impugned orders have been passed against N/N. 35/2020-Central Tax, dated 3-4-2020 issued by the Government by virtue of which the time limit for completion or compliance of any action including filing of any appeal, reply or application or furnishing of any report by any person which falls during the period from 20th March, 2020 to 29th June, 2020 had been extended till 30th June, 2020. The said time limit has further been extended till 30-8-2020 by virtue of N/N. 55/2020-Central Tax. Further, he also stated that no notice of hearing has ever been received by them either through post/courier or on GST portal. No other opportunity of hearing was ever granted. Copies of Show Cause Notices were reflected on the portal but could not be downloaded/retrieved. Due to the said facts no proper opportunity to present the submissions has been given which violate the principle of natural justice and against the GST laws. There are force in the appellant's plea that the said impugned orders were passed without being heard to him. Further, the period involved in the instant cases are covered under the N/N. 35/2020-Central Tax, dated 3-4-2020. Further, amended N/N. 55/2020, dated 27-6-2020 by which time period has been extended for filing of reply upto 30-8-2020. Further, it is also provided in Rule 92(3) of CGST Rules, 2017 that no application for refund shall be rejected without giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard. Matter remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority for providing the proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant and pass the reason/speaking order - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of refund claims due to non-filing of GSTR-3B electronically. 2. Violation of principles of natural justice. 3. Non-receipt of Show Cause Notices and hearing notices. 4. Compliance with extended deadlines due to COVID-19 pandemic. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Rejection of Refund Claims Due to Non-filing of GSTR-3B Electronically: The appellant filed refund claims under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017, for duty paid on the supply of goods to SEZ units. The adjudicating authority rejected these claims on the grounds that the appellant had filed GSTR-3B returns physically instead of electronically on the GST portal. This resulted in the GST liabilities remaining in the Electronic Cash Ledger or Electronic Credit Ledger without being credited to the Government Account, leading to the conclusion that there was no payment of tax in the Government Account. Consequently, the refund claims were deemed inadmissible as per Section 54(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, which allows refunds only for amounts paid on account of tax, interest, penalty, etc. 2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The appellant contended that the rejection of their refund claims violated the principles of natural justice. They argued that the adjudicating authority acted in haste, issuing the impugned orders within 11 working days from the date of the Show Cause Notice (SCN). The appellant highlighted that due to the nationwide lockdown caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, they were unable to track the status of their refund applications and did not receive the SCNs. The rejection of the refund claims without providing a proper opportunity for the appellant to present their case was deemed unfair and against the law. 3. Non-receipt of Show Cause Notices and Hearing Notices: The appellant claimed that they did not receive the SCNs or notices for personal hearings either through post/courier or on the GST portal. They emphasized that no other opportunity for a hearing was granted, which led to a lack of proper opportunity to present their submissions. The appellant referred to Section 75 of the CGST Act, 2017, which mandates that an opportunity of hearing should be granted where an adverse decision is contemplated, and adjournments should be allowed for sufficient cause, up to three times during the proceedings. 4. Compliance with Extended Deadlines Due to COVID-19 Pandemic: The appellant argued that the impugned orders were issued against the backdrop of Notification No. 35/2020-Central Tax, dated 3-4-2020, and Notification No. 55/2020-Central Tax, which extended the time limits for various compliances, including filing appeals and replies, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The appellant maintained that the rejection of their refund claims without considering these extended deadlines was unjust. They further argued that the adjudicating authority should have sought additional information or documents to verify the tax payments and safeguard revenue, rather than outright rejecting the claims. Conclusion: Upon reviewing the facts and submissions, it was found that the impugned orders were passed without providing the appellant a proper opportunity to be heard. The adjudicating authority failed to consider the extended deadlines due to the COVID-19 pandemic and did not adhere to the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority to provide the appellant with a proper hearing and to pass a reasoned and speaking order. The appellant was also directed to submit their submissions before the adjudicating authority. All four appeals were disposed of in this manner.
|