9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f unutilized ITC for the month of July, 2017 Rs. 1,55,93,646/- Refund Sanctioned Rs. 1,54,07,388/-Refund rejected Rs. 1,86,258/- 2 CGST/JP/11/VIII/18 V(CGST-I) 18/24/Ref- Gravita/2017/2612 Dated 24.04.18 Application for refund of unutilized ITC for the month of August, 2017 Rs. 2,23,65,684/- Refund Section Rs. 2,15,35,960/- Refund rejected Rs. 8,29,724/- 3. CGST/JP/12/VIII/18 V(CGST-I) 18/25/Ref- Gravita/2017/2999 Dated 25.04.18 Application for refund of unutilized ITC for the month of Sept, 2017 Rs. 75,84,642/- Refund Section Rs. 66,80,392/- Refund rejected Rs. 9,04,250/- 4 CGST/JP/13/VIII/18 V(CGST-I) 18/22/Ref- Gravita/2017/3427 Dated 26.04.18 Application for refund of unutilized ITC for the month of Oct, 2017 Rs. 7,19,400/- Refund Section Rs. 6,39,322/- Refund rejected Rs. 80,078/- 5 CGST/JP/14/VIII/18 V(CGST-I) 18/40/Ref- Gravita/2017/3435 Dated 26.04.18 Application for refund of unutilized ITC for the month of Nov, 2017 Rs. 34,62,497/- Refund Section Rs. 33,76,303/-Refund rejected Rs. 86,194/- 6 CGST/JP/15/VIII/18 V(CGST-I) 18/39/Ref- Gravita/2017/3449 Dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal one to be exercisable at the option of the proper officer. The adjudicating authority can follow the other recourse available in the law to disallow the Input Tax Credit but not at the time of granting or rejecting the refund. 7. Appeal No. APPL/JPR/CGST/JP/11/VIII/18 The appellant has filed the instant appeal and shown the amount under dispute as Rs. 1,37,583/- (Central Tax) Rs. 1,37,583/- (State Tax) and Rs. 5,54,558/-(Integrated Tax) totaling Rs. 8,29,724/-The adjudicating authority vide the impugned order has held that the claimant has not provided the documents/invoices in respect of Rs. 8,29,724/-(IGST Rs. 554558/-, CGST of Rs. 137583/- & SGST of Rs. 137583) and the same is being deducted from the eligible refund amount. The appellant has contested that Rule 93 as well as Circular 17/17/2017 very clearly say that whenever any refund is rejected by the proper officer then he has to make necessary arrangement by filling Form PMT-03 and RFD-01B to grant the re-credit of rejected amount to them. These are mandatory provisions and not optional one to be exercisable at the option of the proper officer. The adjudicating authority can follow the other recourse available in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gement by filling Form PMT-03 and RFD-01B to grant the re-credit of rejected amount to them. These are mandatory provisions and not optional one to be exercisable at the option of the proper officer. The adjudicating authority can follow the other recourse available in the law to disallow the Input Tax Credit but not at the time of granting or rejecting the refund. The appellant has also contested that the amount can not be recovered when the re-credit was eligible and also preyed that if recovery of Rs. 8,138/- is allowed, then re-credit of complete ITC rejected Rs. 80,078/- should be allowed. 10. Appeal No. APPL/JPR/CGST/JP/14/VIII/18 10.1 The appellant has filed the instant appeal and shown the amount under dispute as Rs. 40,263/- (Central Tax) Rs. 40,263/- (State Tax) and Rs. 5,668- (Integrated Tax) totaling Rs. 86,194/-. The adjudicating authority vide the impugned order has held that refund to the extent of Rs. 5,668/-, Rs. 40,263/- and Rs. 40,263/- (Totaling Rs. 86,194/-) towards IGST, CGST and SGST respectively found inadmissible as the claimant has not provided relevant ITC invoice/documents on which ITC has been availed/claimed. The appellant has contested that Rule 93 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to grant the re-credit of rejected amount to them. The appellant has also contested that the proper officer did not allow the proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant as the issue of not allowing re-credit was not given under the Show Cause Notice. The appellant could not present his side against such view of the proper officer which is against the principle of natural justice. Rule 93 of CGST Rules, 2017 stipulates as under; RULE 93. Credit of the amount of rejected refund claim. - (1) Where any deficiencies have been communicated under sub-rule (3) of rule 90, the amount debited under sub-rule (3) of rule 89 shall be re-credited to the electronic credit ledger. (2) Where any amount claimed as refund is rejected under rule 92, either fully or partly, the amount debited, to the extent of rejection, shall be re-credited to the electronic credit ledger by an order made in FORM GST PMT-03*. Explanation. - For the purposes of this rule, a refund shall be deemed to be rejected, if the appeal is finally rejected or if the claimant gives an undertaking in writing to the proper officer that he shall not file an appeal. Further para 2.10 of CBEC's Circular No. 17/17 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
