Advanced Search Options
GST - Commissioner / Appellate Authority - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 14 of 14 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote & Decision etc.
- 2021 (7) TMI 1214 - COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, JAIPUR
Refund of ITC - ITC accumulated due to Invented Tax Structure - denial on the ground that the seller has not remitted tax with the appropriate State/Central Government authorities and disclosed in his GSTR-1 Return - HELD THAT:- On going through the submission of appellant and RFD-06 I find that the out of total amount of refund of ₹ 9,54,051/- only ₹ 6,27,004/- have been sanctioned by the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority has accordingly processed the refund application and sanctioned the refund amount ₹ 6,27,004/- under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017. Further, he also mentioned in the remark that assessee requested to refund the pending sum of ₹ 6,27,004/- hence RFD-06 is being issued, and in column of RFD-06 “Wrong ITC Claim” ₹ 3,27,047/- (State/UT Tax) has been entered by hi....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 1213 - COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, JAIPUR
Refund of IGST - IGST was paid inadvertently instead of CGST and SGST - refund claim of excess paid CGST - rejection of refund on the ground of time limitation - it is also alleged that reply to SCN does not address the issue of delay in filing refund application - period July, 2017 to March, 2018 - Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017 - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Despite the submission of written reply, adjudicating authority has passed the Orders-in-Original all dated 23-4-2020 wherein he has rejected the refund claims without granting any opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant. Moreover, adjudicating authority did not consider appellant’s request for adjournment of personal hearing until COVID-19 is eased. Thus, it is found that the appellant did not avail the opportunity of personal hearing in the matter. The ....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 1166 - COMMISSIONER OF GST (APPEALS), JAIPUR
Refund claim - time limitation - whether the refund application filed by the appellant is time barred by the period of limitations in terms of Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017? - HELD THAT:- The instant refund application was filed by the appellant on the ground of excess tax payment made by him and it was arised due to not reporting of credit note in GSTR-3B mistakenly and wrongly/erroneously paid the tax on cancelled invoices during the period 2017-18 by filing of GSTR-3B - other remedies are available in the Section 34(2) and Section 39(9) of CGST Act, 2017 but the appellant failed to opt the same and applied the instant refund application on 15-5-2020. The refund application has been rejected by the adjudicating authority by the impugned order on being time barred issue in terms of Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017. There is a settled law ....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 1165 - COMMISSIONER OF GST (APPEALS), JAIPUR
Refund of Input Tax Credit - credit accumulated due to Inverted Tax Structure - time limitation - period July, 2017 to March, 2018 - whether application of refund filed by the appellant is time barred as per Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017 as amended, or not? - HELD THAT:- The due date for filing of refund application for remaining period i.e. for the month of Mar., 2018, has been extended upto 31-8-2020, in terms of the CGST Notification No. 55/2020-Central Tax, dated 27-6-2020 - it is obvious that refund application for the period July, 2017 to February, 2018 is time barred as the same was filed on 13-6-2020. Whereas, the refund application for the month of Mar., 2018 falls within time limits. Whether refund claim for the tax period of March, 2018 is inadmissible or not? - HELD THAT:- The adjudicating authority has rejected the refund for ....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 1164 - COMMISSIONER OF GST (APPEALS), JAIPUR
Refund claim - zero-rated supplies - appellant did not furnish the DRC-03 as required in case where the refund is applied again after issuance of deficiency memo - sufficient opportunity of being heard not provided - HELD THAT:- The appellant has filed Refund for ₹ 7,35,253/- for which deficiency memo No. ZW0801200310312 was issued stating that supporting documents attached are incomplete. The appellant filed afresh ARN Receipt AA080120043271Y (GST RFD-01), dated 28-1-2020 for ₹ 7,62,291/- for which the show cause notice No. ZO0802200237580 (RFD-08) was issued by the Proper Officer i.e. Assistant Commissioner, Division-F, Jaipur on 19-2-2020 and served the same through Common Portal. The appellant only received the e-mail dated 26-2-2020 stating that ‘This mail is in reference to the AA080120043271Y; 26-2-2020 filed by y....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 1116 - COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, JAIPUR
Refund on account of Assessment/Provisional Assessment/Appeal/Any other Order through portal - refund rejected on the ground that the taxpayer has wrongly filed the refund claim in the category of appeals as there was no amount deposited by the taxpayer while filing the appeal against the MOV-09, dated 16-9-2019 - HELD THAT:- It is found that RFD-01, dated 22-6-2020 was filed with Division for refund of IGST @ 18% and penalty of equivalent amount i.e. ₹ 7,50,618/- deposited in pursuance to appeal allowed by Commissioner (Appeals)-II, State Tax, Haridwar - Further, the appellant has deposited ₹ 7,50,618/- to the Electronic Cash Ledger vide Reference No. 201909160845602, dated 16-9-2019 but had not discharged his liability towards tax and penalty payable under the Act by debiting the electronic cash ledger in consonance to Secti....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 1115 - COMMISSIONER OF GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS-II), CHENNAI
Erroneous sanction of refund - export of services - SCN alleged that the period for which the refund claimed is May, 2018, whereas, the relevant payment was received only on 29-1-2019 which did not fall in the range of the relevant period - time limitation - HELD THAT:- In the case on hand the appellant has exported service through invoice dated 31-5-2018. The respondent had, after sanctioning provisional refund, chosen to allege that the refund sanctioned was erroneous and consequently the same is liable for recovery along with applicable interest and penalty under Section 73(1) of CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017. This allegation levelled in the notice to Show Cause (SCN) seamlessly culminated into the impugned Order, as the appellant neither replied to the notice nor appeared for the hearing, holding that the refun....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 869 - COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, JAIPUR
Refund of excess paid ITC - refund rejected on the ground that the excess payment of ITC can be re-credit to ITC ledger only by GST PMT-03 as per sub rule (4A) of Rule 86 CGST Rules,2017 as amended vide N/N. 16/2020 dated 23.03.2020 - Ambiguity in the order - HELD THAT:- On examination of reconciliation chart in respect of tax liability of the appellant, generated by appellant through GSTN common portal, as well perused the ledger account of balance sheet with regard to output supply in month of October-2019 it is found that the appellant had made supply only two suppliers on 21.10.2019 and 24.10.2019, wherein GST payable were ₹ 9,093.76 only and same are being reflected in GSTR-1, however, GST were paid through ITC ₹ 2,69,212.54 and same are also being reflected in GSTR-3B. Therefore, in view of the records it is found that t....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 808 - COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, JAIPUR
Refund claim - rejection on the ground of time limitation - refund has been filed after Two years from the date of supply of the goods to SEZ unit - sub-section (1) of Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017 - zero rated supply or not - violation of principles of natural justice or not - HELD THAT:- As per Section 16 of IGST Act, 2017, it is amply clear that the supply made to SEZ shall be treated as a zero rated supply accordingly, for filing of refund in this case the relevant date would be taken as per clause (a) of explanation 2 (2) of sub section (14) of Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017 - the relevant date in the instant case for calculating relevant date for filing of refund claim shall be 26.07.2017. The appellant's contention that the relevant date shall be taken from the date of payment of tax i.e. 19.10.2018 as specific provisions for rele....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 755 - COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, JAIPUR
Withdrawal of appeal - revocation of GST registration by the proper officer - HELD THAT:- In response to the Personal hearing letter, the appellant vide their letter C.No. Nil dated 08.06.2021 received in this office on 10.06.2021 submitted therein that the jurisdictional officer has revoked the cancellation of registration and subsequently all the pending returns are filed till date. Further, they stated that there is no issue remaining in dispute, so it is requested to kindly accept the request for withdrawal of the appeal and oblige. In view of the request letter of the appellant dated 08.06.2021 regarding withdrawal of appeal due to revocation of GST registration by the proper officer in the instant matter - the appellant are allowed to withdraw the appeal - appeal dismissed as withdrawn.
- 2021 (7) TMI 703 - COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, JAIPUR
Refund of Input Tax Credit - rejection mainly on the ground that no reply to SCN has been received till now - assumption taken that claimant has nothing to submit reply in support of the claim - Time limitation - section 54(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The appellant in appeal memo as well as at the time of personal hearing conducted on 18.06.2021 submitted that he had wrongly filed refund application of ₹ 40,64,000/- by including the ITC of IGST on Capital Goods amounting to ₹ 15,02,542/-. However, he is agreed that the refund of ITC pertaining to Capital Goods are not admissible as per provisions of sub rule 4 of Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, 2017 accordingly, he has withdrawn the refund claim to the extent of ITC amount of Capital Goods and requested to pass an order of refund of ITC to the extent of ₹ 25,61,458....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 657 - COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, JAIPUR
Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - condonation of delay in filing appeal - Section 107(1) of CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- In response to the Personal Hearing letters, Sh. Kishan Swaroop Singhal, Counsel for the appellant, vide their letter C.No. Nil dated 07.07.2021 sent through E mail, submitted therein that now the GST portal has allowed to file application for revocation of cancelled GST registration even beyond 90 days but upto within 180 days therefore the assessee prefer to file an application for revocation of cancelled registration and the same has been approved by the competent authority by issuing REG-22. In view of the request letter of Sh. Kishan Swaroop Singhal, counsel for the appellant dated 07.07.2021 regarding withdrawal of appeal due to revocation of GST registration has been approved by the proper officer by issuing REG-22 in the instant matter - the appeal dismissed as withdrawn.
- 2021 (7) TMI 550 - COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, JAIPUR
Cancellation of registration of petitioner - non filing of GST returns for a continuous period of six months - rejection also on the ground of non payment of tax, late fee and interest - HELD THAT:- The appellant has filed all his pending returns upto date of cancellation of registration and he has also deposited tax liabilities, late fee and interest, therefore it is found that the appellant has now been complied with the relevant provisions in the instant case. In view of the above, the registration of appellant may be considered for revocation by the proper officer. The appellant are directed to file the revocation application in the prescribed form through common portal - The proper officer directed to consider the revocation application of the appellant after due verification of payment particulars of tax, late fee, interest and filing of status returns. Appeal disposed off.
- 2021 (7) TMI 1 - COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, JAIPUR
Carry Forward of credit of Education Cess, SHE Cess and KKC - carry forward through TRAN-1 is permissible under GST law or not? - Circular No. 87/06/2019-GST - HELD THAT:- It does not mean that the Appellant became so entitled to carry forward even a dead claim of unutilised Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess against the Output GST Liability after 01.07.2017. The set off and such adjustments could be allowed only if it clearly fell within the definition of “Eligible Duties” or “Eligible Taxes and Duties” as defined in Explanations 1 and 2. On the contrary, Explanation 3 clearly excluded Cess to be so eligible for carry forward and set off. Therefore, there is no iota of doubt that Cess of any kind except National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD), which was so specified in Explanations 1 and 2 spe....... + More