9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rit application has been preferred for following reliefs: (i) For issuance of Writ in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the order dated 29.10.2020 (Annexure 9) passed by respondent No.2 in Appeal No.29/CGST/JSR/2020 communicated to the petitioner on 03.12.2020. (ii) For issuance of Writ in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the order in the prescribed Form GST RFD 06 being order no., 07/R F/2019 dated 07.02.2019 contained in C. No.V (18 GST CTC/ ITC/ Jan18/63/JSR 111/2018/387 dated 07.02.2019. (iii) For issuance of Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing respondent No.3 for refund of accumulated CGST, SGST and IGST credit for the period of January, 2018, total being Rs.9,89,191.00 to the petitioner. 2. The brief facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Sl. No.1 3 relates to part purchased for maintenance of Plant and Machinery used in production, and therefore, CGST and SGST credit of Rs.2489.22 should be allowed, however those mentioned in Sl. No.4 6 and 9 may be rejected. In other words the petitioner filed a detailed reply and after considering the reply, the adjudication order has been passed. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No.3 without considering the explanation given by the petitioner and without even providing an opportunity of personal hearing passed an order in the prescribed Form GST RFD 06 dated 07.02.2019 whereby the authority has rejected the claim of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order of rejection dated 7.2.2019, the petitioner prefer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce value of zero rated supply of Goods and Services as per GSTR 3B for January, 2018 is zero hence refund amount appears to be zero. It has been specifically stated in the counter affidavit that a personal hearing was also granted to the petitioner on 31.01.2019 which was attended by Sri P. K. Choudhary and Sri Gurtej Singh. Mr. Am it Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the invoices at point nos. 2(1), 2(2), 2(3), 2(7) and 2(8) was considered but refund of credit was not admissible in terms of Section 17(5) of CGST Act, 2017. Learned counsel further submits that rejection of refund claim has been done correctly as the amount of refund claim is calculated on the formula and since value of zero rated supply of Goods and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of document s even before the Appellate Authority what to say before the assessment proceeding, to substantiate its claim of zero rated supply so that its claim could be validated. The law is very clear that merely claiming any refund on the basis of averments would not suffice unless and until the said claim of any assesse is corroborated by documentary evidence. In the instant case the petitioner is making claim without furnishing any documentary evidence to support their contention. From the appellate order it also transpires that the Appellate Authority has duly considered the circular No.37/11/2018 GST dated 15.3 .2018 which is related to a refund claim on account of export of goods without payment of tax and held that the same is pos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
