TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The procedure for seeking refund is provided under chapter XI section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 thereof. Section 54 (3) of the Act of 2017 provides for refund and states that a registered person may claim refund of any unutilised Input Tax Credit at the end of any tax period, except two categories stated therein no refund shall be allowed. According to the Petitioners, the Petitioners were in the category where credit is accumulated on the ground of rate of tax on inputs being higher than the rate of output supplies. The methodology in respect of dealing with the application for refund is provided under the Rules framed under the Act of 2017. In the present case, the Petitioners have not only asserted that notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax, Pune and Respondent No.3 is the Assistant Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax, Pune. 4. On 30 March 2022, the Petitioners filed a claim for refund. The Petitioners had claimed refund to the tune of Rs. 14,90,629/- for the period from April 2019 to March 2020 for the Input Tax Credit. The Petitioners received an email from the Respondents on 4 March 2022 that a notice has been issued to the Petitioners in respect of its refund claim and the Petitioners were advised to access noting by logging to GSTN portal. The Petitioners on 17 May 2022 wrote to Respondent No.4 that notice is not served neither it is available on GSTN portal. Thereafter, the Petitioners received the impugned ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion for refund shall be rejected without giving the Applicant an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, issuance of the notice under Rule 92 (3) of the Rules of 2017 is not a formality but it is in aid of provision giving an opportunity to the Applicant to demonstrate that the refund is payable. 8. In the present case, the Petitioners have not only asserted that notice was not received by the Petitioners nor it was available on GSTN portal in the petition, but before passing the impugned order, the Petitioners had communicated to the Respondents that notice was not received nor it was available on portal. These facts have gone uncontroverted. Proceeding on the basis that the notice was neither received by the Petitioners nor it was made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
