TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant has taken incorrectly recourse of Limitation Act or other Laws by placing reliance of it. The appellant s contention that the relevant date should be taken in the instant case as the date of filing of annual return is not correct/acceptable - In the instant case the appellant filed the refund application on 15-5-2020 for the tax period July, 2017 to March, 2018 which is clearly beyond the two years from the relevant date. The refund claim pertaining to the month of February, 2018 to March, 2018 cannot be disputed on barred by the limitation and contended that the time limit has been extended to 31-8-2020 in terms of Notification No. 35/2020-Central Tax, dated 3-4-2020 as amended by Notification No. 55/2020-Central Tax, dated 27-6-2020 - the appellant did not clarify the date of payment of tax for the month of February, 2018 in the said submission and there is no disputed amount mentioned for the month of March, 2018. The refund application of the appellant is barred by the time limitation in terms of Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017 - Appeal dismissed. - 31 (MAA)CGST/JPR/2021 - - - Dated:- 27-1-2021 - Shri Manzoor Ali Ansari, Additional Commissioner (Appeals) ORD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Refund is rejected for being time barred . 3. Being aggrieved with the impugned order in FORM-GST-RFD-06 vide Order No. ZQ0806200133339, dated 11-6-2020, the appellant has filed the appeal on 27-8-2020 on the following grounds :- - that during the FY 2017-18, while filing the monthly GSTR-3B returns, the following mistakes were made by the appellant in the returns. Particulars Taxable Value IGST CGST SGST Credit Note issued during the year and not reported in Monthly GSTR-3B Returns. 2,44,515/- 2,394/- 70,809/- 20,809/- Invoices cancelled during the year and tax wrongly paid while filing Monthly GSTR-3B Returns 78,74,952/- 13,904/- 135.24/- 135.24/- Total 3,23,26,452/- 16,298/- 20,944.24/- 20,944.24/- - that all the above mistakes made while filing GSTR-3B had noticed by the Appellant while filling the Annua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 experts 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, order or direction; (e) in the case of refund of unutilised input tax credit under clause (ii) of the first proviso to sub-section (3), the due date for furnishing of return under section 39 for the period in w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expired. The appellant has also cited various case laws in their defence which are as under :- [1986] 1986 taxmann.com 19 (CEGAT-Kolkata) : Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta; [2016] 65 taxmann.com 201 (Ahmedabad-CESTAT) = 2016 (45) S.T.R. 454 (Tri. - Ahmd.) CESTAT Ahmedabad Bench : Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Ahmedabad. [1993] 1993 taxmam.com 24 (SC) = 1993 (67) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) Supreme Court of India : Union of India v. I.T.C. Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 3178 of 1982 July 16, 1993, Bombay High Court in the case of Parajit Construction v. Commissioner Excise, Nashik reported in 2018 (359) E.L.T. 113 (Bom.). The two decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in Hindustan Cocoa (supra) and Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur. M/s. SGR Infratech Ltd. (supra) are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Collector of C.E., Chandigarh v. Doaba Co-Operative Sugar Mills. M/s. Aryas Grains Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Raipur [2019 (12) TMI 1092-CESTAT New Delhi. The appellant has also s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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, order or direction; [(e) in the case of refund of unutilised input tax credit under clause (ii) of the first proviso to sub-section (3), the due date for furnishing of return under section 39 for the period in which such claim for refund arises;] (f) in the case where tax is paid provisionally under this Act or the rules made thereunder, the date of adjustment of tax after the final assessment thereof; (g) in the case of a person, other than the supplier, the date of receipt of goods or service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
