9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 954X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mentioned out of turn. 2. By consent taken up for hearing at the admission stage itself. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 4. Petitioner is challenging an order dated 28th July 2021 passed by Respondent No.1, i.e., Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals) by which Respondent No.1 has rejected the refund claim of petitioner amounting to Rs. 1,77,495/-. The refund claim has been rejected on the sole ground of non-compliance of the time limit prescribed under Section 34 (2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (the CGST Act). 5. Petitioner had entered into an agreement with one Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited, Gujarat (TPL) for supply of goods and services. Petitioner raised invoices in the month of September 2018 on TP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be adjusted in any manner. Mr. Ghosh submitted that since the time limit for applying for such adjustment had expired petitioner sought refund of the amount under Section 54 of the CGST Act. 9. Petitioner had filed refund application dated 23rd September 2020 and annexed thereto various supporting documents. The reason of refund is sought as "excess payment of tax". 10. This was followed by Show Cause Notice dated 12th October 2020 calling upon petitioner to show cause as to why the refund claim amounting to Rs. 1,77,495/- should not be rejected in view of certain discrepancies found. Petitioner replied to the Show Cause Notice on 25th November 2020 in which petitioner once again relied upon Section 54 of the CGST Act. Various supportin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 34 (2) of the CGST Act has no relevance to decide the subject application for refund claim of appellants but does not even deal with the same in the impugned order. 13. On these grounds as noted above itself both the orders, i.e. the order passed by Respondent No. 4 on 1st December 2020 and Respondent No.1 on 28th July 2021 needs to be quashed and set aside which we hereby do. We have to also note that in the affidavit in reply respondents have tried to improvise their case and have raised grounds which are not acceptable. First of all what is stated in the affidavit in reply has not been discussed in the two orders which we have quashed and secondly the deficiencies mentioned therein have been completely cured. We make this obser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
