|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 481 to 500 of 1644 Records
-
2025 (4) TMI 1164
Determination fo transaction value - transaction value - sole value for the consideration of supply as stipulated in Section 15 (1) of the CGST Act - HELD THAT:- If the Petitioners want to file any affidavit in rejoinder, they may do so on or before 17th June 2025 and serve a copy of the same on the advocates for Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 4 respectively.
The matter placed on Board on 23rd June 2025 - Stand over to 23rd June 2025.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1163
Provisional attachment of bank account of petiitoner - evasion of GST - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the Panchnama would show that the same was a surprise investigation which was conducted. On the basis of certain records produced by the Petitioner’s officials, a prima facie estimation has been made that there is a mis-match. The amount of stock was higher than what was declared in terms of the records of the Petitioner company - It is to be noted that a period of more than 16 months has lapsed since the issuance of the Panchnama and one year has elapsed since the passing of the impugned order dated 28th March 2024.
As per the impugned order, the alleged evasion of GST is to the amount of Rs. 15.09 crores. Even if this amount is taken into consideration, it cannot be said that the entire amount would be payable immediately. The issue relating to evasion has to be adjudicated in accordance with law. Until then, the Petitioner’s business cannot be prejudiced by complete attachment of bank accounts. The Petitioner is a running concern and as per the accounts which have been placed on record, it is conducting business and paying substantial amounts of taxes.
The details of the assets have also been given in the said certificate. The said Chartered Accountant’s certificate along with the additional documents is taken on record - it would be sufficient at this stage, if 10% of the amount can be secured by way of minimum balance in the bank account of the Petitioner.
Conclusion - The issue relating to evasion has to be adjudicated in accordance with law. Until then, the Petitioner's business cannot be prejudiced by complete attachment of bank accounts.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1162
Violation of principles of natural justice - issuance of summary of SCN without issuing any show cause notice u/s 73 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and the summary of the order dated 30.04.2024 without passing any order under Section 73 (9) of the CGST Act, 2017 - summary order passed without giving any opportunity of hearing - HELD THAT:- Similar issue has already been dealt by a Co-ordinate Bench in Construction Catalysers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the State of Assam and 2 others [2024 (10) TMI 279 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT]. Accordingly, this writ petition is having similar issue, the determination made in said Construction Catalysers Pvt. Ltd, shall cover the present case - it was held in the above case that 'The issuance of the Summary of the Show Cause Notice, Summary of the Statement and Summary of the Order do not dispense with the requirement of issuance of a proper Show Cause Notice and Statement as well as Page passing of the Order as per the mandate of Section 73 by the Proper Officer. As initiation of a proceedings under Section 73 and passing of an order under the same provision have consequences. The Show Cause Notice, Statement as well as the Order are all required to be authenticated in the manner stipulated in Rule 26 (3) of the Rules of 2017.'
The present writ petition stands disposed of by setting aside the summary of show cause notice dated 08.12.2023 and the summary of order dated 30.04.2024 in terms of the determination and conclusion arrived at para 29 of Construction Catalysers Pvt. Ltd.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1161
Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - failure to file returns for a continuous period of six months - rejection of appeal on the ground of time limitation - HELD THAT:- Taking note of the submissions made by the petitioner and the fact that suspension/revocation of the license would be counterproductive and works against the interest of revenue, since in such case, the petitioner would not be able to carry on its business in a sense that no invoice can be raised by the petitioner and the same would ultimately impact the recovery of tax and as such it would be in the best interest of the respondents to take a pragmatic view in the matter so as to permit the petitioner to carry on its business.
The order of cancellation of registration dated 26th September, 2023 under the said Act set aside, subject to the condition that the petitioner files its returns for the entire period of default, pays requisite amount of tax, interest, fine and penalty, if not already paid.
Conclusion - Cancellation of registration under the WBGST/CGST Act for non-filing of returns is valid if procedural.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1160
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternate remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act - failing to consider the relevant documents produced by the petitioner during the adjudication proceedings - Violation of princples of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The entire materials were placed before the authority in the statutory forms, and it was incumbent upon them to verify the genuineness of the statutory forms that are available in the portal. When we read the impugned order, the stand as now reflected in the statement that the 1st respondent could not reconcile the data available in the GST portal and, therefore, he had proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioner, does not appear to be the ground on which the final order was issued. The apparent change in the stand clearly reveals that the 1st respondent did not apply his mind properly to the relevant records before it.
Normally, the remedy of the appellant against Ext.P4 order is to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority, we are of the considered view that, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, the appellant need not be relegated to the alternative remedy of preferring the appeal especially since the 1st respondent himself has now admitted before us that he was not in a position to reconcile the data presented before him by the appellant/petitioner and that was available in the portal. Therefore, in such circumstances, the 1st respondent ought to have granted an opportunity to the appellant to explain the discrepancy. Having not chosen to do so is clearly a violation of the principles of natural justice.
Conclusion - i) The writ petition was maintainable in the facts of the case despite the availability of an appeal under Section 107 CGST Act. ii) The assessing authority's failure to consider relevant documents and refusal to grant hearing on reconciliation amounted to violation of natural justice.
Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1159
Validity of demand confirmed beyond the scope of SCN - Challenge to order passed under Section 73 of the Central/West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - reversal of ITC - HELD THAT:- Upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties since, it would appear from the materials on record that no show cause in relation to fastening of liability on assessable value of the outward supply on inward receipt of taxable goods was made, the aforesaid determination and/or fastening liability to the above extent whereby the proper officer had determined a sum of Rs. 13,27,328.40 i.e. @ 12% on the assessable value of the outward supply on Rs. 2,21,22,140.00 in relation to Narmada Gelatines Ltd. (Kolkata) and Rs.1,66,219.74 for CGST and SGST @12% on Rs.27,70,329.00 being the assessable value of the outward supply on inward receipt of taxable goods in respect of Alivira Animal Health Limited, appears to be beyond the show cause, and Rs.69552.60 on account of CGST and WBGST @5% in respect of other supplies on the basis of the data available with him which also do not find place in the show cause, in my view, cannot be sustained and the same are accordingly set aside.
The period between 29th April, 2024 being the date of order under Section 73 of the said Act and 10th April, 2024 being the date of disposal of the writ petition, or the date of receipt of certified copy of this order whichever is later, shall stand excluded while computing the period of limitation for initiation of any proceeding against the petitioners.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1158
Refund claim - challenge to constitutional validity of Sections 16(2) and 16(4) of the GST Act - HELD THAT:- It is found from the pleadings in the writ petition and the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge that the vires of Sections 16 (2) and 16 (4) of the GST Act was not an issue raised in the writ petition and therefore, the dismissal of the writ petition has caused prejudice to the appellant. Inasmuch as there is no adjudication on the merits of the claim of the appellant/writ petitioner, the judgment under appeal is liable to be set aside and the writ petition be restored to file for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
The impugned judgement is set aside and petition is restored to its file - appeal allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1157
Challenge to order passed u/s 74(9) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax (BGST) Act, 2017 read with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act, 2017 - availing input tax credit (ITC) on invoices from non-existent suppliers - HELD THAT:- This Court has iota of doubt that the Assessing authority while passing the impugned order Annexure-P/10 has not considered in right perspective the materials which were brought on the record. In this regard, the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards Annexure-P/6 together with the enclosures which were filed before the State authority to make him appreciate that the invoices which are subject matter of the proceeding before him were earlier the subject matters of the proceeding before the respondent no.5.
Be that as it may, this Court is convinced that impugned order contained in Annexure-P/10 cannot sustain as it has been passed without consideration of the materials available on the record.
Conclusion - The impugned order contained in Annexure-P/10 cannot sustain as it has been passed without consideration of the materials available on the record.
Application disposed off.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1156
Cancellation of GST registration under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 - non-filing of returns for a continuous period of six months or more was validly executed - HELD THAT:- As per Section 29(2)(c), an officer, duly empowered, may cancel the GST registration of a person from such date, including any retrospective date, as he deems fit, where any registered person, has not furnished returns for a continuous period of 6 (six) months. Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017 has laid down the procedure for cancellation of the registration.
Having regard to the fact that the GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 for the reason that the petitioner did not submit returns for a period of 6 (six) months and more; and the provisions contained in the proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Rules, 2017 and cancellation of registration entails serious civil consequences, this Court is of the considered view that in the event the petitioner approaches the officer, duly empowered, by furnishing all the pending returns and make full payment of the tax dues, along with applicable interest and late fee, the officer duly empowered, has the authority and jurisdiction to drop the proceedings and pass an order in the prescribed Form.
Conclusion - The statutory obligation to file returns electronically and monitor the GST portal is mandatory and that failure to do so does not automatically invalidate cancellation orders passed in accordance with law.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1155
Mainatainability of appeal - time limitation for filing appeal - Cancellation of registration of petitioner - case of the Petitioner is that he had only filed the reply to the said SCNs but no personal hearing notice was received - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- In terms of Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) all the three orders i.e. impugned orders would be appealable orders.
The time limit for filing the appeal would be three months in terms of Section 107 (1) of the CGST Act. The said period had expired in respect of the first impugned Order-in-Original dated 3rd December, 2024.
Since all the three orders are connected, the Petitioner is directed to avail of the appellate remedy and file the appeal/s within 30 days from today. If the appeal is filed within 30 days, the appeal qua order dated 3rd December, 2024 shall not be dismissed as being barred by limitation.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1154
Consolidation of Show Cause Notice (SCN) proceedings for multiple financial years - denial of Petitioner’s right to cross-examine certain third parties - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It can be seen that the impugned order is a very detailed order passed by the Adjudicating Authority running into more than 60 pages, which has discussed all the evidence which clearly as per the Authority demonstrates that undeclared sales were being made by the Petitioner to avoid the payment of GST. Moreover, the question as to whether in a particular year, the proper declaration was given, whether the facts given by a particular witness are right or wrong and whether the Petitioner needs to be permitted to rebut are all factual issues that cannot be considered in writ jurisdiction.
The rationale behind setting aside an order/judgment on the grounds of non-provision of the right to cross-examine is to safeguard the affected party from being prejudiced due to non-providing of cross examination. Therefore, such reasoning presumes/implies the existence of prejudice. In other words, if the alleging party fails to prove any substantial prejudice caused to it due to such non-provision, it shall not have the inherent right to set aside such an order/judgment.
The Court is of the considered view that parties cannot, by praying for cross-examination, cannot convert Show-cause Notice proceedings into mini-trials. Persons seeking cross-examination ought to give specific reasons why cross-examination is needed in a particular situation and that too of specific witnesses. A blanket request to cross-examine all persons whose statements have been recorded by the Department, many of whom are typically employees, sellers, purchasers, or other persons connected to the entity under investigation, cannot be sustained. If a prayer for cross-examination is made, the Authority has to consider the same fairly and if the need is so felt in respect of a particular person, the same ought to be permitted. If not, the Authority can record the reasons and proceed in the case. Moreover, cross examination need not also be of all persons whose statements are recorded. It could be permitted by the Authority in case of some persons and not all.
Conclusion - In the present case, the mere rejection of the Petitioner’s request for cross-examination cannot, in and of itself, be treated as a sufficient ground to bypass the statutorily prescribed appellate remedy and invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
The Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner ought to avail of its appellate remedy in accordance with law in respect of both orders dated 20th January, 2025 and 29th January, 2025 including the demand raised on 1st February, 2025 - Petitioner is, accordingly, permitted to approach the Appellate Authority by way of an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act within thirty days - Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1153
Challenge to orders of the Appellate Authority under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - dismissal of appeal after noticing the non-appearance of the petitioner - whether the Appellate Authority under the CGST Act can dismiss appeals for default? - HELD THAT:- Section 107 (12) of the CGST Act specifically states that the order of the Appellate Authority disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination and the reasons for the decision. In the light of sub-clause (12) of Section 107 of the CGST Act, it is evident that the Appellate Authority has to consider the matter on merits and is not entitled to dismiss an appeal merely for non-appearance. Of course, when there is failure of the appellant to appear, the Appellate Authority shall not grant more than three adjournments to a party during the hearing of the appeal. Despite the failure of an appellant to appear, the Appellate Authority has to pass an order after determining the points for consideration, and the decision should be on merits.
When the impugned order is appreciated, it is noticed that the points for determination had not been stated and the order was not issued on merits. There is no consideration of any of the issues raised by the appellant, and hence, the impugned order is perverse and is liable to be interfered with, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Conclusion - The Appellate Authority under the CGST Act cannot dismiss appeals merely on the ground of non-appearance without deciding on merits and without stating points for determination and reasons.
Petition allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1152
Jursiction - power of proper officer to issue a composite notice for different assessment years - HELD THAT:- A cumulative reading of Section 74 (1), (2) and (10) leaves no room for any doubt that each assessment year can be proceeded separately by the assessing officer or the proper officer as the case may be for the purpose of determining whether there is any willful misstatement or suppression of facts. The time limit prescribed under sub-section (10) of Section 74 of the Act shows that the order under sub-section (9) has to be issued within a period of five years from the due date of furnishing of the annual return for the financial year to which the tax is paid or short paid or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised. This means that for each assessment year, the time limit prescribed for the completion of the proceedings is distinct and different.
On reading sub-sections (9) and (10) of Section 74, which specifically refer to “ financial year to which the tax not paid or short paid or input tax wrongly availed or utilised relates” while passing the final order of adjudication, it presupposes that independent show cause notice be issued to the assessee for each different years of assessment while proceeding under Section 74. We are constrained to hold so because, as we noted earlier, the assessee can raise a distinct and independent defence to the show cause notice issued in respect of different assessment years. In other words, the entitlement to proceed and assess each year being separate and distinct, and further the time limit being prescribed under the Statute for each assessment year being distinct, there are no no reason as to why it should not be held that separate show cause notices are required before proceeding to assess the assessee for different years of assessment under Section 74.
In the present case, since the challenge to the show cause notice goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the proper officer in issuing the same and the writ petition is perfectly maintainable.
Conclusion - The learned Single Judge failed to take note of these intricate questions of law involved while interpreting the provisions of Section 73 read with Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Act and thus failed to appreciate the contentions of the appellants in its true perspective and therefore erred egregiously in dismissing the writ petition relegating the petitioner to prefer reply to the notice before the adjudicating authority - the appellant has made out a case for interference and hence entitled to succeed.
Ext.P1 show cause notice to the extent it relates to the assessment years 2018-2019, 2019-2020, 2020-2021, 2021-2022 stand set aside and Ext.P1 show cause notice to the extent it relates to 2017-2018 is sustained - appeal allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1151
Recovery of amounts from the petitioners' electronic cash and credit ledgers after the petitioners had deposited the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 112(8) of the Central/West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Having regard to the provisions contained in Section 112 (8) of the said Act and the fact that that petitioners’ right to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal is subsisting which the petitioners could not exercise by reasons of the Appellate Tribunal not being constituted and also noting that the petitioner had deposited 10 per cent of the additional amount of tax in dispute in addition to the amount already deposited while preferring the appeal under Section 107 (6) of the said Act, and with regard to the circular dated 11th September, 2024, instead of seeking response from the respondents whether any amount has already been recovered from the petitioners in the manner as aforesaid, the matter can be disposed of by directing the respondents themselves to consider whether the aforesaid recovery as disclosed by the petitioners through the copy of the electronic liability ledger for the tax period 1st January, 2025 to 11th January, 2025 has been made, and in the event it is found that the respondents have deducted the aforesaid amount in respect of the tax period April, 2022 to March, 2023 to forthwith recredit the same to the respective cash/credit ledger of the petitioners so that the same is reflected in the electronic liability ledger of the petitioners for the month of May, 2025.
Conclusion - The recovery of Rs. 50,330/- from the petitioners' electronic cash and credit ledgers is unlawful. The respondents were directed to verify the recovery and re-credit the amounts forthwith.
Without going into the merits of the matter, the writ petition stands disposed of.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1150
Cancellation of registration of petiitoner - challenge to order of cancellation of registration on the ground of not providing an opportunity of hearing as well as such order was passed without assigning any reason for cancellation of the registration of the petitioner - HELD THAT:- The Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of M/s. Aggrawal Dyeing & Printing vs. State of Gujarat [2022 (4) TMI 864 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has issued the guidelines to the respondent-authorities holding that 'all the writ applications deserve to be allowed solely on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and, accordingly, the writ applications are allowed.'
The aforesaid judgement was rendered in the year 2022. However, in spite of the above direction issued by this Court, the respondent-authorities without following such directions are issuing cryptic notice and order for cancellation of registration number of the petitioner - In the present matter, order of cancellation of registration is passed without giving any reason by the respondent authorities.
The impugned order passed by the respondent-Authority for cancellation of registration are required to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer at the show-cause notice stage - this petition is partly allowed by quashing and setting aside order of the respondent-Authority for cancellation of registration and the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer at show-cause notice stage, however, the registration number of the petitioner shall remain suspended till such show-cause notice is disposed of as per the directions.
Conclusion - The cancellation order passed without opportunity of hearing and without assigning reasons is unsustainable and violates natural justice.
Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1149
Challenge to adjudication orders passed by the respondent under the KGST Act for assessment year 2018-19 - difference/ discrepancy between the GSTR-7 and GSTR 3B - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the material on record including the impugned orders will indicate that it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner did not respond/reply to the show cause notice and the impugned ex-parte orders have been passed without hearing the petitioner. Under these circumstances, in view of the specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that his inability and omission to submit the reply to the show cause notice and participate in the proceedings was due to bona fide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, by adopting a justice oriented approach and in order to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner, it is deemed just and appropriate to set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law by issuing certain directions.
The matter is remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law, bearing in mind the aforesaid Circular bearing No. 183/15/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022 - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1148
Time limitation for filing SCN - whether the impugned SCN was issued beyond the permissible statutory limitation? - HELD THAT:- There are substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that a combined reading of Section 73(2) and (10) of the Act permits the Department to issue show cause notice upto three months prior to the passing of the assessment order. The assessment order was passed on 28.02.2025 and therefore, the show cause notice could have been issued upto 28.11.2024. Whereas, in the instant case, it was issued on 30.11.2024. Similar view was taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in M/s. The Cotton Corporation of India [2025 (2) TMI 362 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT].
In view of the statutory provisions and interpretation by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, we find substantial force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned assessment order cannot sustain judicial scrutiny.
The impugned assessment order dated 28.02.2025 is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed
-
2025 (4) TMI 1147
Violation of principles of natural justice - neither the pre-intimation notice under Rule 142 (1A) nor the SCN were communicated or served upon the petitioner - Petitioner claims that petitioner was not aware of the said proceedings - HELD THAT:- Though several contentions have been urged by both sides as regards to the petitioner not having received the pre-intimation notice and show-cause notice and his inability and omission to contest the proceedings, it is a matter of record and an undisputed fact that the petitioner did not submit his reply to the show-cause notice or pre-intimation notice nor contested the proceedings, which culminated in the impugned ex-parte order. So also, the appeal filed by the petitioner before the second respondent has been dismissed as barred by limitation. Insofar as the appeal filed by the petitioner being rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 01.10.2024 is concerned, since the same was dismissed as barred by limitation, the same would not constitute merger to come in the way of this Court exercising its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Under these circumstances, having regard to the specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that his inability and omission to submit replies and contest the proceedings was due to bona fide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, it is deemed just and appropriate to adopt a justice oriented approach and provide one more opportunity to the petitioner by setting aside the impugned order dated 10.07.2023 and remitting the matter back to the first respondent for reconsideration of the matter afresh in accordance with law to the stage of petitioner submitting reply to the impugned show-cause notice.
Conclusion - The matter is remitted to the first respondent for fresh consideration after affording the petitioner an opportunity to submit reply and contest proceedings.
Petiiton disposed off by way of remand.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1146
Recovery of wrongfully availed ITC - rejection of application of rectification of the order on the ground that there was no error apparent on the face of the record in the said order and the said order was a reasoned and speaking in itself and was passed following the due process of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It appears that though in the case of the petitioner, there was a movement of the goods from the factory to the godowns and there was no actual sale of the goods as per the scheme of the GST Act, the tax is now levied on the supply of the goods i.e. movement of the goods from one place to another and accordingly the petitioner was required to obtain the GST number for its factory and different godowns situated at different locations in the country. Accordingly the petitioner obtained the GSTIN numbers in the State of Gujarat and from September, 2018 had obtained the GSTIN number for the warehouse situated at Surat. It appears that by mistake the petitioner referred to the GSTIN number which was obtained for the State of Gujarat was wrongly stated for the supplies received at warehouse/godown situated at Surat by mentioning earlier GSTIN No. 24AAACG4464B5Z0 instead of GSTIN No. 24AAACG4464B7ZY.
On the part of the petitioner, there was no excess ITC claimed and only because of the wrong mentioning of the GSTIN number in Form-GSTR-1, there was a mismatch between the Form-GSTR-3-1 and GSTR-3B which was duly rectified by the petitioner later on and the respondent therefore could not have passed the impugned order raising demand on the basis of the mismatch between the form GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B inspite of the rectification/reconciliation made by the petitioner later on.
On perusal of compliance report, it is clear that the same is contradictory or it appears that the respondents without careful examination of the submissions of the tax payer, reconciliation statement and audit findings have passed impugned order-in-original and cursorily rejected the rectification applications filed by the petitioner resulting into the raising of the huge demand on the petitioner for no fault on part of the petitioner.
Conclusion - The impugned order-in-original is liable to be quashed and set aside" because it was passed without proper consideration of the rectifications made by the petitioner and the reconciliation statements, and was contrary to the material on record.
The impugned order-in-original is liable to be quashed and set aside - Stand over to 16/04/2025.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1145
Refund claim - rejection of refund by deficiency memo on the ground that refund not allowed in case of payment made voluntary by DRC-03 - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the affidavit-in-reply, it appears that the respondent No. 4 has referred to the facts of the case without considering the issue raised in the petition for rejection of the refund claim of the petitioner by issuing deficiency memo in FORM GST RFD-03.
Rule 90 of the GST Rules prescribes acknowledgement where the application relates to a claim of refund either from the electronic cash ledger or electronic credit ledger filed by the assessee as per Rule 89 (1) of the Rules. Rule 90 of the Rules prescribes the procedure while accepting or pointing out the deficiency in the application filed by the assessee in FORM GST RFD-01 - Rule 89 and 90 are the procedural rules with regard to filing of refund application and acknowledgement of such refund application so as to cure the deficiency in the refund application filed by the assesee. Therefore, at the stage of acknowledgement of the refund application filed by the assessee in FORM GST RFD-01, the same could not have been rejected by respondent No. 4 by stating “Refund not allowed in cases payment made voluntary by DRC-03”. Rule 92 of the Rules provides for orders sanctioning refund and after deficiency in the refund application is cured by the assessee, a separate procedure is prescribed to pass an order either accepting or rejecting the refund application in FORM GST RFD-06 sanctioning the amount of refund or to grant an opportunity of hearing by issuing notice in FROM GST RFD-08.
Conclusion - The respondent No. 4 has, inspite of pointing out the deficiency in the application filed by the petitioner in FORM GST RFD-01, rejected the same by issuing deficiency memo in GST RFD-03 stating that declaration is not in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the GST Rules. Respondent No. 4 therefore, ought to have pointed out the deficiency and could not have observed so in the deficiency memo for not allowing the refund as the petitioner has made payment in DRC-03. Such declaration or order is not contemplated in Rule 90(3)of the GST Rules.
The impugned deficiency memo dated 30.09.2024 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent No. 4 to consider the refund application filed by the petitioner in FORM GST RFD-01 in accordance with the Rules and take appropriate decision as to whether there is deficiency in the application or not - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
............
|
9911796707
