Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + Commissioner GST - 2021 (6) TMI Commissioner This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 42 - Commissioner - GSTRefund of IGST paid in excess - excess payment of IGST mistakenly is a deposit or Tax - time limitation - principles of natural justice - Whether excess payment of IGST mistakenly would he consider as a deposit or Tax? - HELD THAT:- It is evident that payment made by the appellant by debiting from their ledger against the tax liabilities only. Hence, it may not be termed as deposit rather it is payment of tax only. The amount lying in ledger can only be considered as deposit or amount, further, the appellant has offset their liability in the tax head i.e. in the head of IGST and there is no doubt that the IGST is a Tax in terms of IGST Act, 2017 - the disputed amount paid by the appellant is nothing but it is tax only and it may not be considered as pre-deposit or deposit by any stretch of imagination and further the appellant’s contention has not been supported by the provisions of law provided under GST Act or Rules. Whether application for refund filed by the appellant is time barred in terms of Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 or not? - HELD THAT:- Any kind of refund s governed by Section 54 of CGST Act read with Rule 89 of CGST Rules, 2017, and procedure for filing of refund application has been given in the said section and rules only. Therefore, refund under Section 77 will also govern under Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017. Accordingly, period for filing of refund in such cases will be apply as per Section 54 and relevant date will also be taken as per this provisions only - contention of the appellant that the time limit has not been provided in Section 77 of CGST Act read with Section 19 of IGST Act, 2017 for filing of refund application is not acceptable. Whether principle of natural justice has been fallowed in the instant case or not? - HELD THAT:- Proper officer has issued show cause notice in Form of GST RFD-08 and personal hearing was also granted by him to the appellant - On perusal of the screen shot of the portal it is found that the show cause notice as well as rejection order were communicated to the appellant through common portal. Further the same fact was also intimated to the appellant vide letter dated 12-6-2020 by the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner. The rejection of the refund application of the appellant on the time barred ground is correct and proper - Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|