TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 899X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... N/N. 27/2012-CE(NT), dated 18.06.2012 - ceiling of the provisions of section 142(3) of CGST Act, 2017 - amount of refund claimed in ST-3 return, not debited - HELD THAT:- The appellants have not been able to explain the required documents before the refund sanctioning authority. The learned counsel has submitted that they would be able to produce and also explain in regard to necessary documents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9.2017 for ₹ 42,70,597/-; (ii) Jan. 17 to Mar. 17 on 21.12.2017 for ₹ 35,06,368/-; (iii) Apr. 17 to Jun. 17 on 23.03.2018 for ₹ 43,71,779/-. 2.1 The appellants submitted all the necessary documents, while filing the refund claims and requested the department concerned to conduct the adjudications of refund claims without issuing show-cause notice expecting proper adjudic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ), dated 18.06.2012; (e) Ceiling the provisions of section 142(3) of CGST Act, 2017, the learned adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim; and (f) The appellants had not debited the amount of refund claimed in their ST-3 return. 2.4 Aggrieved by the order of adjudication, the appellants filed appeals before Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the same. Hence these appeals. 3. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e decision in the case of M/s. Convance Clinical Development Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru (East) reported in 2021 TIOL 377 CESTAT Bang. He argued that after the introduction of GST, the debit to be made as required under clause 2(h) of the said notification can be only reflected as credit under GSTR 3B, which has been complied by the appellants. He prayed that the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
