TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 430X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gly, also sanctioned in terms of the Order-in-Original dated 12.09.2019 - It appears from the review order dated 15.03.2020 that a few invoices were picked up for scrutiny. Out of the said invoices, it was found that the vehicles mentioned in two invoices were not registered on the e-vahan portal. It is on the basis of this finding that the decision to file an appeal was taken by the Commissioner of Tax. He assumed that the refund claims made by the petitioner were dubious solely on the basis of the aforesaid finding. However, the Appellate Authority had found the said finding to be incorrect - thus, the review order dated 15.03.2020 to file an appeal against the Order-in-Original is founded on an erroneous finding. Having accepted the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fied bank account of the petitioner. The same comprised of ₹16,22,489/- as refund of the Central Tax (CGST) and ₹6,10,013/- as State Tax (SGST). 4. The aforesaid order was reviewed by the Commissioner under Section 107(2) of the Act. In terms of the said provision, the Commissioner directed that the appeal be preferred to the Appellate Authority [in this case, the Joint Commissioner (Appeals)]. 5. The review order dated 15.03.2020, directing the filing of the appeal, indicates that the decision to appeal the Order-in Original dated 12.09.2019 was premised on a finding that the vehicle numbers mentioned in two invoices [Invoice No. GST/19-20/174 dated 04.05.2019 (vehicle no. DL01 LY 4032) and Invoice No. GST/19-20/208 dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pect of remaining 124 invoices, the respondent had neither submitted e vahaan details nor submitted any evidence to substantiate that they had actually received the goods. In the absence of such details, I do not agree with the contention of the respondent. Merely filing of returns, GSTR-2A, Statement-3, Shipping Bills date, EGM details etc. for claiming refund of unutilized ITC is not enough to prove bonafide. There was no compliance with the provisions of Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017. 9. Notwithstanding that the Appellate Authority had found that the two vehicles were registered on the e-vahan portal, it allowed the Revenue s appeal on the ground that the petitioner had not established that the goods had been received by providin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ronic credit ledger of such person. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, no registered person shall be entitled to the credit of any input tax in respect of any supply of goods or services or both to him unless, (a) he is in possession of a tax invoice or debit note issued by a supplier registered under this Act, or such other tax paying documents as may be prescribed; [(aa) the details of the invoice or debit note referred to in clause (a) has been furnished by the supplier in the statement of outward supplies and such details have been communicated to the recipient of such invoice or debit note in the manner specified under section 37;] (b) he has received the goods or services or both. [ Expla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ys from the date of issue of invoice by the supplier, an amount equal to the input tax credit availed by the recipient shall be added to his output tax liability, along with interest thereon, in such manner as may be prescribed: PROVIDED ALSO that the recipient shall be entitled to avail of the credit of input tax on payment made by him of the amount towards the value of supply of goods or services or both along with tax payable thereon. (3) Where the registered person has claimed depreciation on the tax component of the cost of capital goods and plant and machinery under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the input tax credit on the said tax component shall not be allowed. (4) A registered person shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was found that the vehicles mentioned in two invoices were not registered on the e-vahan portal. 16. It is on the basis of this finding that the decision to file an appeal was taken by the Commissioner of Tax. He assumed that the refund claims made by the petitioner were dubious solely on the basis of the aforesaid finding. However, the Appellate Authority had found the said finding to be incorrect, as is apparent from Paragraph 6.5 of the impugned order, as stated above. 17. Thus, the review order dated 15.03.2020 to file an appeal against the Order-in-Original is founded on an erroneous finding. Having accepted the same, the Appellate Authority was required to reject the Revenue s appeal outrightly. 18. Having established that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
