9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 492X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e also perused the circular dated 29.12.2017 which was furnished today by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The facts are not in dispute. It is the case of the petitioner that the Transferor Company namely the Quest Global Engineering Private Limited stood merged with the petitioner. It is submitted that the said Transferor Company had raised invoices during the month of June, July, August and September, 2017 on their client/customer namely M/s.Caterpillar India Private Limited and had discharged the Tax liability particularly under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 and the respective GST Acts, 2017. 3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that after the amalgamation of the said Transferor Company namely Quest Global E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iii. Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs Union of India, 2016 (342) E.L.T. 48 (Guj.) iv. Southern Surface Finishers Vs Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Muvattupuzha, 2019 (28) G.S.T.L. 202 (Ker.) v. Shoppers Stop Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Chennai, 2018 (8) G.S.T.L. 47 (Mad.) vi. Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Chennai Vs BPL Limited, 2010 (259) E.L.T. 526 (Mad.) vii.Union of India Vs Kirloskar Pneumatic Company, 1996 (84) E.L.T. 401 (SC). viii.State of Haryana Vs Hindustan Machine Tools Limited, (2015) 328 E.L.T. 27 (P&H). 8. The learned Junior Panel Counsel defending the stand of the respondent submits that the petitioner has neither filed any records to substantiate that the tax was paid on an ear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se, admittedly, tax was paid under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 and CGST Act, 2017 on 01.11.2017 and therefore the petitioner's refund claim was beyond the period specified under the Act. 12. By way of re-joinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even as per C.B.E & C. Circular No.26/26/2017-GST, F.No.349/164/2017-GST dated 29.12.2017, the amount paid in excess has to be refunded to the petitioner. 13. It is submitted that all the issues arising out of the difficulties experienced during first year during the implementation of GST has been explained. A reference was made to Paragraph 3.3 of the above circular which reads as under:- 3. Amendment/corrections/rectification of errors: 3.1 Various represen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to be followed by him to rectify such error." 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to illustrations given in Paragraph 8 which reads as under:- 8. Stage 1 - Confirmed Submission Company B had reported an inter-State sale but realized that the same sale was counted twice and hence was not to be reported. But the return form was already submitted and no change could be done to the liabilities. What can company B do? In this case, Company B has the option to use the "edit" facility to reduce such liability and proceed to file their return. Stage 2 - Cash Ledger Updated Company B had reported an inter-State sale but realized that the same sale was counted twice and hence was not to be reported or taxed. Bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... furnished under section 39 in such manner as may be prescribed." 16. Explanation to Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 defines the expression refund and relevant date for the purpose of the above provision. They are reproduced as under:- Explanation: For the purpose of section:- (1) "refund" includes refund of tax paid on zero-rated supplies of goods or services or both or on inputs or input services used in making such zero -rated supplies, or refund of tax on the supply of goods regarded as deemed exports, or refund of unutilized input tax credit as provided under sub-section (3). (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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the relevant date. This is evident from a reading of sub-clause (c) to sub-section 8 to Section 54 of the respective GST enactments which read as under:- "(8) ... (a) ... (b) ... (c) refund of tax paid on a supply which is not provided, either wholly or partially, and for which invoice has not been issued, or where a refund voucher has been issued." 21. The circular which has been issued sought to be relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner will apply only in a case where the Company had reported supply twice. However, in this case the petitioner has generated invoice number and date. 22. The option available to the petitioner was to request its customer/client M/s.Caterpillar India Private Limited to issue an appropriate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
