The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in M/S. SHIVBHOLA FILAMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CGST & ANR. - 2023 (7) TMI 1231 - DELHI HIGH COURT restored the refund application rejected by the Adjudicating Authority and held that the assessee would not be left unheard.

Facts:

M/S Shivbhola Filaments Private Limited (“the Petitioner”) is engaged in the manufacturing of Polypropylene Yarn and Polypropylene narrow woven fabric, which are subject to GST @ 12% @ 5%, respectively.

The Petitioner claimed that raw materials used for manufacturing the product (Granules, Master Batch, Spin Finish Oil) are chargeable to GST @ 18%  due to the inverted tax structure, the Petitioner was unable to avail the entire input tax credit paid by it on inputs.

In the aforesaid circumstance, the Petitioner filed refund applications for various tax periods from August, 2018 to March 2019. However, the Petitioner received the notice of rejection of application for refund (“the SCN”) in respect of each refund application filed by him.

The SCN rejected the refund on the ground of mismatch between the GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A.

In response, the Petitioner submitted reconciliation and for each tax period. However, the Revenue Department    rejected the refund application and challenged the same before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”). The said appeals have been rejected by a common Order-in-Appeal dated November 18,2021 (“the Impugned Order”) without offering opportunity of being heard.

The Petitioner filed write before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court challenging the Impugned Order.

Issue:

Whether rejection of the refund applications solely on the basis of mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A was justified?

Held:

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in M/S. SHIVBHOLA FILAMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CGST & ANR. - 2023 (7) TMI 1231 - DELHI HIGH COURT held as under:

• Observed that, the rejection of the Petitioner's refund applications based on mismatches without providing them with an opportunity to reconcile and the discrepancies is deemed inappropriate and unfair.
• Restored the Petitioner's refund applications instructed the Adjudicating Authority to reconsider and reassess case.
• Further stated that the Petitioner will be granted the opportunity to present their case.
• Directed the Adjudicating Authority to review the Petitioner's submissions, explanation, and reconciliation statement and to issue a comprehensive and well-reasoned decision regarding the refund applications.

(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)