9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1436X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent No. 2 department (hereinafter, 'department') to sanction the refund claim of the Petitioner amounting Rs. 19,09,038 /- along with applicable interest in terms of Section 56 of the CGST Act. 3. The case of the Petitioner is that it is engaged in rendering freight forwarding services to various clients in India and abroad. The Petitioner procures various input services from various dealers in respect of domestic sales and discharges GST liability at 18%. It is stated that usually, the Petitioner has an excess balance and unutilized Input Tax Credit ('ITC') exists in favour of the Petitioner. The present petition relates to the unutilized ITC for the period January, 2023. 4. It is further stated that the Petitioner filed a refund claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IGSTIN-07MKCK0356L7ZA) registered at 4th floor, House No 23, BLK-C, PKf-71, Sector 5, Rohini, North West Delhi, Delhi-110085 vide ARN-M070224005149X dated 02.02.2024 consequent to passing of Order-in-Appeal No. 24UADqcentrul Tax-II/Delhi/23-24 doted 76.07.2024 till the finality of the Appellate proceedings before GSTAT or HiSh Court or the Supreme Court against said order or further order passed by these forums and appealed against before the next Higher Appellate forum, as grant of refund at this stage will adversely affect the revenue in said appeal on account of the malfeasance committed as discussed supra." 7. The position under Section 54 (11) of the CGST Act, 2017 has been recently considered by this Court in Shalender Kumar v. Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellate Authority and no order in review having been passed, the Department cannot hold back the refund. In G.S. Industries (supra) the Coordinate Bench has observed as under: "xxx xxx xxx 7. The petitioner responded to the said Show Cause Notices. Petitioner's explanation was not accepted and by a separate order dated 14.12.2020, the applications for refund were rejected. 8. The petitioner filed separate appeals impugning the orders-in-original dated 14.12.2020, which were disposed of by a common order dated 03.01.2022 (Order-in-appeal No.209-210/2021-2022). The Appellate Authority allowed the petitioner's appeal. It accepted that the petitioner was in existence at the material time, and the findings contrary to the same were erron ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel for the parties also pointed out that the said issue is covered by the earlier decision of this Court in Mr. Brij Mohan Mangla Vs. Union of India & Ors.: W.P.(C) 14234/2022 dated 23.02.2023. 14. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to forthwith process the petitioner's claim for refund including interest. 15. It is, however, clarified that this would not preclude the respondents from availing any remedy against the Order-in-appeal dated 03.01.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority. Further, in the event, the respondents prevail in their challenge to order-in-appeal dated 03.01.2022, the respondents would also be entitled to take consequential action for recovery of any amount that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
