TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 31.07.2018 would not lapse and that the petitioner would be entitled to refund of the same in view of the notifications and circulars of the respondents, in particular, the Notification dated 26.07.2018 and that the clarified Circular dated 24.08.2018 have not been considered or appreciated by the respondents in their proper perspective, which has resulted in erroneous conclusion in rejecting the refund claim of the petitioner. It is also significant to note that the petitioner has produced all relevant documents along with the claim for refund including documents produced in the present petition comprising of details of stock, Chartered Accountant Report, etc., for the purpose of establishing that the stock was available with the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts and circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has submitted an application dated 03.04.2019 for refund under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017. The said application was processed by the respondents, who rejected the same vide order dated 21.08.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was also dismissed vide order dated 11.02.2020. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the adjudicating authority and the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner is before th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aforesaid impugned order without considering or appreciating the specific contentions of the petitioner that the stock lying with it was not cleared as on 31.07.2018 and the input tax credit from it would not lapse and consequently, the petitioner would be entitled to refund which has been wrongly rejected by the respondents and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 5. In support of his contentions, learned counsel places reliance upon certain documents submitted along with refund claim as well as the following decisions: (i) Shabnam Petrofils Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2019 (29) G.S.T.L. 225 (Guj.); (ii) Samtel India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur 2003 (155) E.L.T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all relevant documents along with the claim for refund including documents produced in the present petition comprising of details of stock, Chartered Accountant Report, etc., for the purpose of establishing that the stock was available with the petitioner and the same was not cleared as on 31.07.2018. 9. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the adjudicating authority and the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority without taking into account or properly or correctly considering or appreciating the material on record comprising of pleadings and documents of the petitioner and notifications, Circulars, etc., as well as the judgment relied upon by the petitioner is clearly unre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
