9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petitioner is a partnership firm having its registered office at Murad Nagar, Ghaziabad (UP) and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of cold roll form sections, pre-fabricated building systems and structural steel and allied products. The petitioner firm was having GST registration No.O9AAHFA4616R3ZW issued for the purpose of business in the State of U.P. 3.2 Petitioner firm supplied certain goods to Larsen and Toubro Company at its plant situated at Rewa. One of the consignments was detained by the Sales Tax Department on the allegation that wrong address was mentioned in the e-Way bill. As per e-Way bill the distribution address was of Bhopal, whereas the goods were supplied at Rewa. Considering the same, the department imposed penalty upon the petitioner firm, which was paid by the petitioner firm and the petitioner firm challenged the order of penalty dated 09.03.2019 before the Appellate Authority, Satna Division cum Joint Commissioner, State Tax Bhopal, which was allowed by the order dated 24.08.2020 and the penalty imposed by the State Tax Officer, AEB Satna by order dated 09.03.2019, was set aside and direction was issued to refund the amount of penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 107(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 assailing the order dated 07.08.2021 before the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST and Central Excise, Bhopal. 3.7 Appellate Authority claimed that three opportunities of personal hearing through virtual/physical provided to the petitioner firm on 19.01.2023, 22.01.2023 and 30.01.2023 respectively, however, petitioner firm did not turn-up therefore, the appeal was decided ex-parte. By order dated 31.01.2023, the appeal was allowed and the refund order dated 07.08.2021 was held improper, illegal and incorrect. In terms of Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017, it is held that petitioner firm was not entitled to claim refund of Rs. 2,24,118/- in M.P. registration number and direction was issued to recover the said amount from petitioner firm. 3.8 The appellate authority has recorded the finding that the tax and penalty was paid by M/s. Ashirwad Industries, Ghaziabad vide challan mentioning GST Number of Ghaziabad of the petitioner firm as well as Temporary number GSTIN 281900000291TMP and the appeal against the imposed of tax and penalty was also preferred by M/s Ashirwad Industries, Ghaziabad but refund was claimed by M/s Ashirwad Industries, Rewa having its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allegations of fraud and willful misstatement or suppression of facts against the petitioner firm are incorrect. No notice of appeal was received by the petitioner firm allegedly issued by Assistant Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Rewa Division, Rewa and Joint Commissioner (Appeals), CGST and Central Excise, Bhopal. Similarly, show cause notice dated 29.08.2023 was never served upon the petitioner firm and order dated 13.12.2023 was passed without serving any notice to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel Shri Anshuman Singh appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that petitioner firm succeeded in the appeal preferred challenging the imposing of tax and penalty and the appeal was allowed by order dated 24.8.2020, which attained finality. So far as entitlement of the petitioner firm to receive the refund, is not in dispute. He further submits that during the pendency of appeal, the petitioner firm obtained the permanent registration number in State of M.P. also and therefore, the petitioner firm applied for refund using the permanent registration number of M.P., which was allowed and refund was sanctioned to the petitioner firm. The order of review was passed behind the bac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal was decided by order dated 30.01.2023. He relied upon the provision of Section 25(4) of CGST Act, 2017, which provides that a person who has obtained or is required to obtain more than one registration, whether in one State or Union territory or more than one State or Union territory shall, in respect of each such registration, be treated as distinct persons for the purposes of CGST Act, and therefore, M/s. Ashirwad Industries, Ghaziabad who deposited the tax and penalty amount was different entity then M/s. Ashirwad Industries, Rewa, who claimed the refund. He supported the action of the authorities and submits that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as arguments advanced by the rival parties and documents available on record, it is not in dispute that tax and penalty was imposed upon M/s. Ashirwad Industries, Ghaziabad, which was deposited by the petitioner firm with the department and thereafter preferred an appeal, which was allowed by order dated 24.08.2020 and the order of appeal was not further challenged and consequently the order attained finality. Meaning thereby, petitioner firm was entitled for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
