9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 1039X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax Division-H, Jaipur (hereinafter called as the "adjudicating authority") as mentioned below. As common issue is involved in all these three appeals therefore, I take up the same for decision simultaneously: S. No 1 Appeal No 2 Order in Original No & date(lmpugned order) 3 Period of dispute 4 Order sanctioning /rejecting refund 5 1 APPL/JPR/CGST/JP/15/II/2020/ No.233/GST /Refund/FI NAL/2018-2019 dated 07.11.2019 Appellant has filed refund claim under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 of Rs. 407/- for the period October 2017 in respect of ITC of 50% of IGST paid under RCM. Refund rejected Rs. 407/(IGST) Total Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or not. Further, the claimant has submitted that as per Section 17(4) of CGST Act, 2017 they have availed the Input Tax Credit of 50% of IGST paid under reverse charge. Since, they do not accept the liability to pay IGST under reverse charge. They have filed refund for balance 50% of IGST paid under RCM. However, the assessee has not fulfilled the conditions for non apply of 50% restrictions as the assessee has paid Tax under RCM and claimed ITC. 2.3 The adjudicating authority vide Orders in Original all dated 07.11.2019 has rejected the refund claims for the period and amount mentioned at above in Para-I in column No.(4) and (5) filed by the appellant stating that on scrutiny of refund claim, it was observed that the claimant has n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn during the remaining part of the financial year ; Provided further that the restriction of fifty per cent. shall not apply to the tax paid on supplies made by one registered person to another registered person having the same Permanent Account Number. 2.4 In view of the above provisions and relevant documents submitted by the appellant, it appeared that the appellant has availed second option and availed 50% ITC and remaining claimed as refund but as per above provisions, remaining shall lapse. Therefore, it appeared that the appellant has not fulfilled the conditions for non-apply of 50% restriction as the appellant has paid tax under reverse charge and claimed ITC. Further, as per Notification No.13/2017-CT(Rates) and 10/2017-IT(Rate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g authority has passed the ex-parte order without granting any opportunity of hearing and rejected the refund. * that proviso to Rule 92(3) of CGST Rules, 2017 provides that refund application shall not be rejected without opportunity of hearing. Relevant extract of rule is reproduced as under: Provided that no application for refund shall be rejected without giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard. * that it is clear from the above that GST Law provides for providing opportunity of hearing to the applicant and refund application can not be rejected without granting hearing. * that it is settled legal position that any order which is against the assessee can not be passed without granting opportunity of hearing. Thus, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he adjudicating authority has rejected the refund claim on the ground that the appellant has not submitted the final outcome of the referred SCN whether the issue has been finally decided in favour of the assessee or not. That, on the services provided by the Foreign Bank, Tax is payable by recipient of service (i.e. SBI). The refund claims filed by the appellant is not covered by any of the refund category mentioned in Section 54 and claimed under any other category and there is no specific provision for refund of the tax paid under RCM. 6. I find that the appellant bas mainly contested in their appeal memo that the adjudicating authority has passed the ex-parte order and had not granted any opportunity of hearing and rejected the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order shall be made available to the applicant electronically and the provisions of sub-rule (1) shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to the extent refund is allowed: Provided that no application for refund shall be rejected without giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard. 8. I find that the adjudicating authority while rejecting the refund claims of the appellant neither considered their first request for seeking 15 days time to submit reply to show cause notice nor granted any sufficient opportunity of time to attend the personal hearing despite their written request dated 22.10.2019. I also find that non-passing of speaking order indeed amount to denial of natural justice. Before passing of orders atleast their request for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
