9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity has correctly rejected the refund for the month of March, 2018 by applying the formulae as provided in Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017. Whether principle of natural justice has been followed in the instant case or not? - HELD THAT:- The adjudicating authority had issued Show Cause Notice in form of RFD-08 to the appellant, also provided opportunity for personal hearing . However, the appellant neither attended the same on the stipulated day nor filed any reply of the same. Further, the appellant wished to clarify the issue from the adjudicating authority/proper officer through letter via e-mail and the adjudicating authority properly replied to the appellant - there are no merit in the contention of the appellant. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - 30 (MAA)CGST/JPR/2021 - - - Dated:- 25-1-2021 - Shri Manzoor Ali Ansari, Additional Commissioner (Appeals) ORDER This appeal has been filed under Section 107 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter also referred to as the Act ) by M/s. HV Airconditioning Systems Private Limited, A-21, Shanti Path, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur-302004 (hereinafter also referred to as the appellant ) ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 (GSTIN :- 08AAACH0827M1ZJ) under which you have filed a refund claim amounting to ₹ 2829962/- under the category of ITC accumulated due to inverted tax structure. During the scrutiny of the refund claim, it has been found that the refund claim for the period from July, 2017 to February, 2018 is time barred as per section 54 of CGST Act, 2017. Further in respect of refund claim for the month of March, 2018 it has been noticed that as per the calculation for admissible refund as per Rule 89(5) of CGST Rules, 2017, the admissible refund comes out to be (₹ 413753/-) i.e. refund is not admissible. - that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority after multiple follow ups passed Annexure dated 13 July, 2020 (after 10 days) which neither contained detailed reasons as to how the refund claim is treated as time barred under Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017 nor contained calculation as per Rule 89(5) of CGST Rules, 2017 according to which refund for the month of March, 2018 was treated as inadmissible and a negative amount of ₹ 4,13,753/- was computed by Ld. Adjudicating Authority. It can be very well seen that all these assumptions and interpretation of statute/provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itrariness. Rule 92 of the CGST Rules, 2017, governing refunds vide its sub-rule (3) provides that - (3) Where the proper officer is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that the whole or any part of the amount claimed as refund is not admissible or is not payable to the applicant, he shall issue a notice in FORM GST RFD-08 to the applicant, requiring him to furnish a reply in FORM GST RFD-09 within a period of fifteen days of the receipt of such notice and after considering the reply, make an order in FORM GST RFD-06 sanctioning the amount of refund m whole or part or rejecting the said refund claim and the said 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. Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST, dated 18 November, 2019 issued by CBI C for refunds provides the procedure for processing refund application of the assessee. CBE C (now CBI C), vide Circular No. 1053/2/2017-CX., dated 10 March, 2017 iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... structure shall be based on the relevant period which in the facts and circumstances of the present case is the period July, 2017 to March, 2018 (clubbed) and thus the computation must be considered for the period in toto for which refund is sought to be claimed rather than segregating it on monthly basis as alleged by Ld. Adjudicating Authority. Further, the appellant in their defence has cited various case laws which are as under :- Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract Leasing, Kota v. M/s. Shukla Brothers, reported in 2010 AIR SCW 3277 M/s. Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Anr. v. State of U.P. Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 9417 of 2019) Heveacrumb Rubber (P) Ltd. v. Superintendent of Central Excise, reported in 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1685 (Ker.). M/s. Amman Match Company v. The Assistant Commissioner of GST Central Excise, reported in 2018 (363) E.L.T. 120 (Mad.) M/s. General Mills India Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI [2015 (322) E.L.T. 95 (Bom.) Shri Admar Mutt etc. etc. v. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Deptt. and Ors., AIR 1980 SC 1. M/s. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan [citation :- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the financial year for which the period of refund pertains as the amendment in the Clause (e) to explanation (2) to Section 54(14) of CGST Act, 2017 does not have retrospective effect. For buttress of the contention the appellant has quoted the following pronouncements :- (a) West U.P. Sugar Mills Assn. v. State of U.P. (SC), reported in (2002) 2 SCC 645 (b) State of Rajasthan v. Mangilal Pindwal (SC) reported in (1996) 5 SCC 60) (c) Govinddas v. Income Tax Officer, cited in AIR 1977 SC 552. (d) Sony India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi cited in 2014 (304) E.L.T. 660 (Del.) (e) Collector of C. Ex. Cus. v. Bajaj Tempo Ltd., cited in 1990 (50) E.L.T. 80 (Tribunal) (f) Vaibhav Steel Corporation v. The Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax (VAT) and Others reported in 2014 (2) TMI 252 etc. 7. Further, the appellant has quoted the Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST, dated 18-11-2019. Before going to the merit of the issue under consideration the relevant statutory matrix are as under :- As per Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017, which reads as under :- (54) - Any person claiming refund of any tax and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ule) with (another atom or group) , or a person or thing that serves in place of another, such as a player in a game who takes the place of an injured colleague . Further, the term substitute is more clarified as under :- Ordinarily wherever the word substitute or substitution is used by the legislature, it has the effect of deleting the old provision and make the new provision operative. The process of substitution consists of two steps : first, the old role is made to cease to exist and next the new rule is brought into existence in its place. The rule is that when a subsequent Act amends an earlier one in such a way as to incorporate itself, or a part of itself, into the earlier then the earlier Act must thereafter be read and construed as if the altered words had been written into the earlier Act with pen and ink and the old words scored out so that thereafter there is no need to refer to the amending Act at all. Further, the expression Substitute means that the very expression substituted would mean that the old clause stands obliterated. Therefore, it is clearly implies that, statutory provisions for due date of filing of the application of refund will b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant, also provided opportunity for personal hearing . However, I find that the appellant neither attended the same on the stipulated day nor filed any reply of the same. Further, I also find that the appellant wished to clarify the issue from the adjudicating authority/proper officer through letter via e-mail and the adjudicating authority properly replied to the appellant. Thereafter, the adjudicating authority has passed the impugned order. From the above facts, I am of the view that principle of natural justice has been followed in the instant case. Further, all the submissions/averment have been taken up in the appeal, at length. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contention of the appellant. 10. I also find that the appellant has cited various case laws in support of their submission. On going through the cited judgments, it is observed that the facts and circumstances discussed in the pronouncements are not squarely applicable in the instant case as the facts of the instant case are entirely different. 11. In view of the above, I hold that impugned order is proper and I do not find any infirmity in rejection of the refund. Accordingly, I hereby reject the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
