TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 808X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat adjudicating authority has failed to pass a speaking order as he did not bring on surface the sufficient basis for the rejection of the refund claim - HELD THAT:- The adjudicating authority/proper officer while issuing the SCN dated 29.10.2020 as well as in the order dated 17.11.2020 he has properly mentioned/elaborated the reason for rejection of refund claim. Therefore, it may not be justify to say that the adjudicating authority/proper officer has not been passed the speaking order - there are no force in the contention of the appellant in this regard also. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - 170 (MAA ) CGST/JPR/2021 - - - Dated:- 13-7-2021 - (MANZOOR ALI ANSARI) ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ORDER This appeal has been filed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 by M/s S.R. Enterprises, (Prop Sh.Sunil Rastogi), D-83, Anand Vihar, Jagatpura, Jaipur-302025 (Raj) (hereinafter also referred to as the appellant ) against the Order-in-Original No.ZN0811200209401 dated 17.11.2020 (hereinafter as the impugned order ) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Goods Service Tax Division-F, Jaipur (hereinaft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the adjudicating authority was predestined of passing the order against the assessee without considering submission of the assessee which is completely unacceptable. Hence the said order is bad in law and may kindly be quashed immediately. 1. That the said order is based on incorrect understanding of the facts of the case and law on the part of Id. adjudicating authority who was pre-destined of passing the order against the appellant as the reply submitted by the appellant in response to the SCN has not been considered by the Id. Adjudicating authority. 2. That the Id. adjudicating authority has alleged in the SCN that the refund claim appears time barred as the refund has been filed after two years from the date of supply of goods to SEZ unit . Said allegation is faulty and based on incorrect understanding of the law. 3. The brief facts relevant here are that the appellant made zero rated supply i.e. SEZ supply of goods with payment of IGST during July 2017. However, the tax on the same was erroneously not paid at the time of filing of July 2017 GSTR.-3B. That the IGST payable on the said supply in fact remained unpaid till the due date of filing of August 2018 GST ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f two years from the relevant date in such form and manner as may be prescribed : Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, - (2) relevant date means - (a) in the case of goods exported out of India where a refund of tax paid is available in respect of goods themselves or, as the case may be, the inputs or input services used in such goods, - (i) if the goods are exported by sea or air, the date on which the ship or the aircraft in which such goods are loaded, leaves India; or (ii) if the goods are exported by land, the date on which such goods pass the frontier; or (iii) if the goods are exported by post, the date of despatch of goods by the Post Office concerned to a place outside India; (b) in the case of supply of goods regarded as deemed exports where a refund of tax paid is available in respect of the goods, the date on which the return relating to such deemed exports is furnished; (c) in the case of services exported out of India where a refund of tax paid is available in respect of services themselves or, as the case may be, the inputs or input services used in. such services, the date of - (i) receipt of payment in convertible forei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ample clear that the relevant date for refund as the date of supply of goods to SEZ unit in the present case as alleged by the Id. adjudicating authority in the SCN is incorrect and fallacious and therefore the rejection of the refund claim on the ground that it is time barred is absolutely unacceptable and therefore the impugned order is bad in law and may kindly be quashed immediately. 4 Personal hearing in virtual mode through video conference was held on 08.07.2021. Shri Chirag Jain, Authorized Representative appeared on behalf of the appellant. During personal hearing he reiterated the grounds of appeal and explained the same. In view of the submission, he requested for favourable order. 5. I have gone through the facts of the case and written as well as additional submissions made by the appellant in their appeal memo and accordingly I proceeded for deciding the appeal. 6. On going through the case records and written as well as additional submissions of the appellant, I find that the issue involved in the present case for consideration are as under : (a) whether Refund claim is time barred or not as per provisions of Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 ? (b) whet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are exported by land, the date on which such goods pass the frontier; or (iii) if the goods are exported by post, the date of despatch of goods by the Post Office concerned to a place outside India; (b) in the case of supply of goods regarded as deemed exports where a refund of tax paid is available in respect of the goods, the date on which the return relating to such deemed exports is furnished; (c) in the case of services exported out of India where a refund of tax paid is available in respect of services themselves or, as the case may be, the inputs or input services used in such services, the date of - (i) receipt of payment in convertible foreign exchange [or in Indian rupees wherever permitted by the Reserve Bank of India], where the supply of services had been completed prior to the receipt of such payment; or (ii) issue of invoice, where payment for the services had been received in advance prior to the date of issue of the invoice; (d) in case where the tax becomes refundable as a consequence of judgment, decree, order or direction of the Appellate Authority, Appellate Tribunal or any court, the date of communication of such judgment, decree ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the date of payment of tax i.e. 19.10.2018 and therefore the refund is within the time limit of 2 years from the relevant date as per clause (h) of explanation 2 of sub section 14 (2) of provisions of Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017. 8.1 In the above context, the comments was called for from the jurisdictional authority vide this office letter C.No. APPL/JPR/CGST/JP/07/I/2021 dated 06.07.2021 regarding taking up the relevant date in the instant case. In response to this letter, the concerned division on the issue, vide his letter dated 09.07.2021- submitted that the relevant date means- (a) in the case of goods exported out of India where a refund of tax paid is available in respect of goods themselves or, as the case may be, the inputs or input services used in such goods, - (i) if the goods are exported by sea or air, the date on which the ship or the aircraft in which such goods are loaded, leaves India; or (ii) if the goods are exported by land, the date on which such goods pass the frontier; or (iii) if the goods are exported by post, the date of despatch of goods by the Post Office concerned to a place outside India; Further, the jurisdictional au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
