Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post an Article
Post a New Article
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Co Author :

In case of Co-Author, You may provide Username as per TMI records

Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Articles

Back

All Articles

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
Sort By:
Relevance Date

Refund application cannot be rejected without giving proper reason

Bimal jain
Refund Application Rejection Overturned: Court Mandates Reasoned Notice for Input Tax Credit Claims Under Section 54. The Delhi High Court ruled that a refund application cannot be rejected without providing a proper reason. In the case involving a company engaged in exporting education services, the Revenue Department had rejected their refund claim for Input Tax Credit without adequate explanation. The Appellate Authority also dismissed the appeal without issuing a notice detailing the reasons, denying the company an opportunity to respond. The court set aside the previous order, allowing the Revenue Department to issue a fresh notice with clear reasons for rejection, and permitting the company to respond within the stipulated time frame. (AI Summary)

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of CHEGG INDIA PVT LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DELHI EAST & ANR. - 2023 (7) TMI 1007 - DELHI HIGH COURTheld that the refund application cannot be rejected without giving a proper reason and stated that the Revenue department may issue  a fresh notice, clearly setting out the reasons for proposing to reject the refund claim and the assessee  file a response in Form RFD-09, within the prescribed period.

Facts:

M/s Chegg India Pvt. Ltd. (“the Petitioner”) is engaged in the business of software development, content development, marketing and other IT enabled services in the field of education technology.

The Petitioner submitted that they export education services in 70 countries without payment of GSTi.e. under LUT model. 

Since, the services are zero rated supplies as per Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017(“the IGST Act”) they are eligible to claim refund of Input Tax Credit (“ITC”) on Input Services used in export of services.

Accordingly, the Petitioner filed the refund application of ITC which inter alia included ITC pertaining to catering charges and common area maintenance charges ('CAM”).

The Revenue Department (“the Respondent”) vide an order dated March 02, 2020 ('the Order”) rejected the refund claim filed by the Petitioner.

Aggrieved by the Order, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authoritywho vide an order datedSeptember21, 2021 (“the Impugned Order”) rejected the appeal of the Petitionerby merely referring Section 17(5)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017(“the CGST Act”).  However, the Appellate Authority held that the Petitioner has not fulfilled the conditions of Section 16 of the CGST Act.

Aggrieved by the Impugned Order the Petitioner filed a writ before the Hon’ble Delhi High court praying to quash the Impugned Order and order the Respondent to grant the refund.

Issue:

Whether the application of refund can be rejected without giving any reason?

Held:

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CHEGG INDIA PVT LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DELHI EAST & ANR. - 2023 (7) TMI 1007 - DELHI HIGH COURTheld as under:

  • Observed that, there is a fundamental error in the manner in which the petitioner’s refund applications have been processed.
  • Noted that, the Appellate authority had not issued any notice as required under Rule 92(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017(“the CGST Rules”) setting out the reasons for rejecting the refund thus, the Petitioner had no opportunity to satisfy the Appellate Authority to its claim for refund to the extent it has been rejected.
  • Held that, the application of refund claim cannot be rejected without giving a proper reason and a proper opportunity should be given to the Petitioner to show the reason why refund should not be rejected.
  • Set aside the Impugned order and stated that the Respondent is at the liberty to issue a fresh notice, clearly setting out the reasons for proposing to reject the refund claims to the extent it has and the Petitioner in terms of Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules, file a response in Form RFD-09, within the prescribed period.

(Author can be reached at [email protected])

answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Articles