Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (9) TMI 483

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ciples of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence for his claim of refund; either before the adjudicating authority or before the appellate authority though he was afforded personal hearing but the petitioner failed to prove that the declaration zero rated value of GSTR 1 was legal and genuine. The assessee could not provide any such corroborative evidence in the form 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 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for refund of accumulated CGST, SGST and IGST credit for the period of January, 2018, total being Rs.9,89,191.00/- in the prescribed Form GST RFD 01A along with supporting documents. The petitioner while filing the GSTR 3B return of Input Tax Credit for the month of January, 2018 inadvertently missed out to mention the zero rated supplies to the tune of Rs.3,79,82,605/ against the outward taxable supplies (zero rated) in the said return and instead mentioned the same to be zero . However, the said amount of zero rated supplies has been correctly shown in GSTR 1 return of outward supplies against export invoices. On receipt of the refund application dated 13.12.2018, the respondent No.3 issued and served a notice of rejection of appl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sidering the facts in entirety and without considering the documents which was provided by the petitioner. The respondents have failed to take into account the fact that the definition of adjusted total revenue as provided under Rule 89 (4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 specifically excludes the exempt ed supplies and the claim of the petitioner for refund fall s under exempt supplies as per Section 2(47) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Further, the respondents have erred in rejecting the claim of refund on the ground that the zero rated supply of Goods and Services has been taken as Rs.3,79,82,605/ though the value of zero rated supply as per GSTR 3B appears to be zero. Relying upon the aforesaid .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... STR 3B is self assessment/declaration and the petitioner did not corroborate his cl aim by corresponding invoices as such the claim of the petitioner for refund was rejected in absence of supporting documents. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record and the averment s ma de in the respective affidavits, it appears that petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence for his claim of refund; either before the adjudicating authority or before the appellate authority though he was afforded personal hearing but the petitioner failed to prove that the declaration zero rated value of GSTR 1 was legal and genuine. It further transpires that the Appellate Authority has giv .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... been rejected Even before this Court the petitioner failed to do so. 7. Before parting it is pertinent to mention here that the claim of the petitioner that the impugned order of rejection is bad in law on the ground of principal of natural justice of affording reasonable opportunity is also not sustainable, inasmuch as, from the impugned order itself it is clear that personal opportunity of hearing was duly afforded to the petitioner and as a matter of fact on the date of personal hearing which was conducted on 31.1.2019 the assesse was represented by Sri P. K. Choudhary and Sri Gurtej Singh as such even the ground of natural justice is misplaced in the instant case. 8. Having regard to the facts of the case and the discussion made .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates