Condonation of delay in filing appeal - extension/exclusion of limitation on account of COVID-19 - revocation of cancellation of GST registration - compliance with return-filing and payment requirement for revocation - verification of payment particulars and returns by proper officerCondonation of delay in filing appeal - extension/exclusion of limitation on account of COVID-19 - Whether the appeal filed with delay is maintainable and whether the period of limitation is to be extended/ excluded on account of COVID-19 orders. - HELD THAT: - The Appellate Authority found that the appeal was filed after the normal three-month period and that statutory condonation under Section 107(4) is limited to a further period of one month where sufficient cause is shown. The appellant relied on the Supreme Court's suo motu orders excluding the period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 and related directions, and on the CBIC Notification extending certain timelines during April-May 2021. Having noted those judicial and administrative directions, the Authority proceeded to decide the matter on merits rather than rejecting the appeal solely for delay. [Paras 5, 7]Delay was noted but, in view of the Supreme Court orders and CBIC notification relating to exclusion/extension on account of COVID-19, the Appellate Authority proceeded to decide the appeal on merits.Revocation of cancellation of GST registration - compliance with return-filing and payment requirement for revocation - verification of payment particulars and returns by proper officer - Whether the cancelled GST registration should be considered for revocation in view of filing of pending returns and payment of dues. - HELD THAT: - The adjudicating authority cancelled registration on the ground of non-filing of returns for a continuous six month period. The appellant produced challans and GSTR-3B returns for the periods up to the date of cancellation and submitted that all pending returns have been filed and dues paid. Rule 23(1) of the CGST Rules provides that no application for revocation shall be filed if registration is cancelled for failure to furnish returns unless such returns are furnished and amounts in terms thereof paid; Circular No.99/18/2019-GST clarifies that returns due till date of cancellation must be furnished before application for revocation. The Authority found that the appellant had substantially complied with these requirements and held that the registration may be considered for revocation. The Authority directed the proper officer to consider the revocation application after due verification of payment particulars of tax, late fee, interest and status of returns, thereby remitting the matter for administrative verification and final action under Rule 23. [Paras 8, 10, 11, 12, 13]The appellant has substantially complied with the requirement of filing returns up to the date of cancellation; the appeal is allowed to the extent that the proper officer is directed to consider the revocation application after due verification of payments and returns.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed in part: having regard to COVID-19 related extensions/exclusions the Appellate Authority decided the matter on merits and found that the appellant has filed returns up to the date of cancellation; the matter is remitted to the proper officer to verify payment particulars and returns and to decide the application for revocation of cancelled GST registration in accordance with law.

Revocation of cancellation of registration - condonation of delay in filing appeal - extension/exclusion of limitation period on account of COVID-19 - compliance with Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - verification of payment particulars and returns by proper officerCondonation of delay in filing appeal - extension/exclusion of limitation period on account of COVID-19 - Whether the delayed filing of the appeal could be condoned and limitation adjusted in view of COVID-19 orders. - HELD THAT: - The Appellate Authority recorded that the appeal was filed beyond the three-month period and that condonation under Section 107(4) is available only for a further period of one month if sufficient cause is shown. The authority considered the Supreme Court's orders excluding the period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 and related directions, and the CBIC notifications extending certain timelines, but noted the statutory scope of condonation under Section 107(4). Having considered the submissions regarding the proprietor's age and COVID-19 lockdown, the authority proceeded to decide the appeal on merits in the light of the pandemic-related extensions and notifications referenced in the order. [Paras 7]Delay was recorded but the Appellate Authority proceeded to decide the appeal on merits after noting the COVID-19 related extension/exclusion orders and notifications.Revocation of cancellation of registration - compliance with Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - verification of payment particulars and returns by proper officer - Whether the appellant complied with the pre-conditions for filing an application for revocation of cancellation and whether the appeal should be allowed. - HELD THAT: - The authority examined Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017 and the CBIC Circular explaining that where registration is cancelled for failure to furnish returns, returns and amounts due must be furnished/paid before revocation application can be entertained. Records showed the appellant had filed GSTR-3B for specified months up to November-2019 and deposited pending tax/interest for the period July 2017 to March-2018. On that basis the Appellate Authority found that the appellant had complied with the relevant pre-conditions to the extent reflected in the submissions and payment documents on record. Having so found, the authority concluded that the registration could be considered for revocation. [Paras 11, 12, 13]The appellant has complied with the relevant conditions for revocation to the extent evidenced; the appeal is allowed to the extent that revocation may be considered.Verification of payment particulars and returns by proper officer - revocation of cancellation of registration - Whether the matter of revocation is finally adjudicated by the Appellate Authority or remanded for verification. - HELD THAT: - Although the Appellate Authority found compliance with the prerequisites for revocation on the material produced, it did not itself pass an order of revocation in FORM GST REG-22. Instead, the authority directed that the proper officer should consider the appellant's application for revocation after due verification of payment particulars, tax, late fee, interest and status of returns. This directs a fresh or further administrative verification by the proper officer before final action on revocation is taken. [Paras 13]The appeal is allowed and the matter of revocation is remanded to the proper officer for due verification of payments and returns and consequential consideration of the revocation application.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed; the Appellate Authority found the appellant had produced returns and payments sufficient to engage consideration under Rule 23 and directed the proper officer to verify payment particulars, tax, interest, late fees and status of returns and thereafter decide the application for revocation of cancellation of registration.

Refund of unutilised input tax credit on zero-rated supplies - natural justice / opportunity of hearing - procedure under Rule 89 and Rule 90 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - communication of deficiencies in Form GST RFD-03 - calculation of eligible refund using turnover-adjusted formula under Rule 89Refund of unutilised input tax credit on zero-rated supplies - natural justice / opportunity of hearing - procedure under Rule 89 and Rule 90 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - communication of deficiencies in Form GST RFD-03 - Whether the adjudicating authority rightly rejected the appellant's refund claim for non-submission of documents without following the prescribed scrutiny and communication procedure and without affording opportunity of hearing. - HELD THAT: - The adjudicating authority rejected the refund application on the ground that no response was received to the show-cause notice and therefore assumed the claimant had nothing to submit. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the show-cause notice was not properly made available to the appellant via the portal, that the appellant had communicated to the jurisdictional office and transmitted documents by e-mail and otherwise pursued the matter, and that the proper officer had not followed the procedural safeguards under Rules 89 and 90 (including scrutiny and communication of deficiencies through the prescribed mechanism). Consequently the rejection premised on a presumed non-submission and without applying the prescribed procedure and without ensuring availability of the notice to the appellant was improper. The Commissioner (Appeals) further considered the verification conducted by the jurisdictional Dy. Commissioner which applied the Rule 89 formula (taking lower of invoice and shipping bill values, adjusted turnover and net ITC) and found an eligible refund amount. In view of these findings the impugned rejection was set aside and the matter was directed to be processed in accordance with the Act and rules.Rejection of the refund claim was improper for failure to follow the statutory scrutiny and communication procedure and for denying the appellant an effective opportunity to comply; the impugned order is set aside and the refund claim is to be processed in accordance with the CGST Act and Rules.Calculation of eligible refund using turnover-adjusted formula under Rule 89 - Whether any portion of the refund claim is admissible and, if so, the admissible amount as verified by the jurisdictional authority. - HELD THAT: - On direction from this office the jurisdictional Dy. Commissioner examined the claim and, applying the Rule 89 formula (adjusted total turnover and net ITC; and where values in shipping bills are lower than GST invoices, taking the shipping bill value), computed the admissible portion of the refund. The verification concluded that a portion of the claimed refund is admissible and quantified the eligible amount accordingly under the prescribed formula. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted that verification and directed processing of the refund consistent with that calculation and the statutory procedure.A portion of the claimed refund is admissible as per the Rule 89 calculation carried out by the jurisdictional authority; the appeal is allowed and the adjudicating authority is directed to process the refund in accordance with the Act and rules.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed; the impugned rejection is set aside because the proper procedure under the CGST Act and Rules was not followed and the appellant was denied an effective opportunity to comply, and the adjudicating authority is directed to process the refund claim in accordance with the CGST Act and Rules (applicable admissible amount having been indicated by the jurisdictional verification).

Zero rated supply - relevant date for refund - refund within two years / limitation - refund under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 - principle of natural justice - speaking orderZero rated supply - relevant date for refund - refund within two years / limitation - refund under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Whether the refund claim filed in respect of supplies to SEZ for July-2017 was time barred under the limitation prescribed in Section 54. - HELD THAT: - The Commissioner (Appeals) examined the statutory definition of zero rated supply and the Explanation to Section 54 concerning the relevant date for refund. For supplies to an SEZ, the specific clauses in the Explanation concerning export/deemed export apply; consequently the relevant date is the date on which the goods are admitted/received in the SEZ (i.e., the export/entry date), not the subsequent date on which tax was paid. The order records that the tax invoice shows goods received in the SEZ on 26.07.2017, making that the relevant date for limitation. Applying the two-year limitation period from that relevant date, the refund filed on 17.10.2020 fell outside the permissible period. The appellate authority therefore upheld the adjudicating authority's conclusion that the refund claim was time barred and correctly rejected the claim on limitation grounds. [Paras 9, 10]Refund claim held time barred; rejection on limitation grounds upheld.Principle of natural justice - speaking order - Whether the adjudicating authority violated the principle of natural justice or failed to pass a speaking order in rejecting the refund. - HELD THAT: - The appellant contended that the adjudicating authority did not consider its submissions and therefore failed to pass a speaking order, infringing principle of natural justice. The appellate review found that the show cause notice and the impugned order adequately recorded the reasons for rejection of the refund claim. The Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the adjudicating authority had stated the basis for rejection and that the contention about non-application of mind was without merit; the cited precedents were held inapplicable to the facts of this case. [Paras 11, 12]No breach of natural justice; the order was speaking and adequacy of reasons was affirmed.Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed: the refund claim for July-2017 is time barred as the relevant date is the date of admission/receipt of goods in the SEZ (26.07.2017), and the adjudicating authority's order was found to be a speaking order complying with natural justice.

Revocation of cancellation of registration - Failure to furnish returns - Requirement to furnish returns and pay tax, interest, penalty and late fee before revocation - Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Circular No.99/18/2019-GST - effect of first proviso to sub rule (1) of Rule 23 - Verification of payment particulars and status of returnsRevocation of cancellation of registration - Requirement to furnish returns and pay tax, interest, penalty and late fee before revocation - Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Circular No.99/18/2019-GST - effect of first proviso to sub rule (1) of Rule 23 - Whether the appellant had complied with the conditions for filing an application for revocation of cancellation of registration and was entitled to have the cancellation considered for revocation. - HELD THAT: - The adjudicating authority cancelled registration for non filing of returns and non payment of interest. The appellant produced GSTR 3B returns up to January 2020 21 and produced challans showing payment of interest aggregating to the amount noted by the adjudicating authority for the periods July 2017 to March 2018, April 2018 to March 2019 and April 2019 to March 2020. Rule 23(1) precludes filing an application for revocation where returns are not furnished and amounts due are unpaid; Circular No.99/18/2019 clarifies that returns due till date of cancellation must be furnished before seeking revocation. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the appellant had filed returns up to the date of cancellation and had deposited the pending interest liability, thereby substantially complying with the conditions for seeking revocation under Rule 23. On that basis the appeal was allowed to the extent of directing consideration of revocation. [Paras 5, 6, 9]The appellant has substantially complied with the conditions for seeking revocation and the appeal is allowed to the extent that the registration may be considered for revocation.Verification of payment particulars and status of returns - Revocation of cancellation of registration - Whether the revocation application should be finally granted without further verification by the proper officer. - HELD THAT: - Although the appellant has produced returns and challans evidencing payment of interest, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not itself effect the revocation but directed the proper officer to examine and verify the payment particulars of tax, late fee and interest and the status of returns before passing the order in FORM GST REG 22 or otherwise. The appellate order therefore requires the proper officer to carry out due verification of records and payments as a prelude to passing a final order on revocation. [Paras 9]The matter is remitted to the proper officer to verify payment particulars and status of returns and thereafter consider the revocation application.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed insofar as the appellant has been held to have substantially complied with the conditions for seeking revocation of cancellation; the matter is remitted to the proper officer to verify payments and return status and to pass appropriate order on revocation in accordance with Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017 and relevant circular guidance.

Refund of excess payment of tax - re-credit to electronic credit ledger - Form GST PMT-03 - proportionate refund in original mode of payment - Rule 86(4A) of CGST Rules - Rule 92(1A) of CGST RulesRefund of excess payment of tax - re-credit to electronic credit ledger - Form GST PMT-03 - Rule 86(4A) of CGST Rules - Rule 92(1A) of CGST Rules - Whether excess tax paid by the appellant through debit to the electronic credit ledger in October-2019 is admissible as refund and should be re credited to the appellant's electronic credit ledger by an order in Form GST PMT-03 in terms of Rule 86(4A) read with Rule 92(1A). - HELD THAT: - The appellate authority examined the refund application, the departmental show cause, the appellant's admissions and supporting records (GSTR-1, GSTR-3B, reconciliation and CA certificate) and the jurisdictional officer's comments. The records show outward supplies for October-2019 attracting GST of Rs. 9,093.76 while the appellant debited the electronic credit ledger for a much larger amount, resulting in excess debit of Rs. 2,60,118.24. Rule 86(4A) provides for re-credit to the electronic credit ledger where refund relates to amounts paid by debit from that ledger, and Rule 92(1A) contemplates issuance of FORM GST PMT-03 for the portion attributable to credit. The adjudicating authority's original order contained ambiguity and remarks indicating an intention to re-credit through PMT-03 but recorded inadmissibility; the jurisdictional officer explained that a technical issue prevented re-crediting in the ITC ledger. On the face of the records and in view of the statutory scheme for proportionate refund in original mode of payment, the Tribunal found the appellant's claim for re-credit by PMT-03 to be sustainable and directed the proper officer to process the refund accordingly. [Paras 6, 7, 8]Appeal allowed; proper officer directed to process re credit of the excess tax paid through the electronic credit ledger by issuing Form GST PMT-03 in accordance with Rule 86(4A) read with Rule 92(1A).Final Conclusion: The appellate authority allowed the appeal, holding that the excess tax debited from the electronic credit ledger in October 2019 is refundable by re credit to the electronic credit ledger and directed the proper officer to process the re credit by issuing FORM GST PMT-03 as mandated by Rule 86(4A) read with Rule 92(1A).

Revocation of cancelled registration - withdrawal of appeal - disposal of appeal as withdrawn - issuance of REG-22Revocation of cancelled registration - issuance of REG-22 - withdrawal of appeal - Allowance of appellant's request to withdraw the appeal following revocation of the cancelled GST registration by issuance of REG-22. - HELD THAT: - The appellant filed the appeal against cancellation of GST registration. Subsequently the appellant's counsel informed the authority that the GST portal permitted filing of revocation applications up to 180 days and that a revocation in the present case had been approved by the competent authority by issuance of REG-22. On receipt of that communication the appellant sought permission to withdraw the appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted the revocation by REG-22 and, on that basis, allowed the appellant to withdraw the appeal and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The order records the revocation and the consequent withdrawal as the grounds for disposal, without adjudication on the merits of the original cancellation order. [Paras 5, 6]Appeal allowed to be withdrawn and dismissed as withdrawn in view of revocation of the cancelled GST registration by REG-22.Final Conclusion: The appeal has been permitted to be withdrawn and is disposed of as withdrawn because the cancelled GST registration has been revoked by issuance of REG-22.

Withdrawal of appeal - cancellation of GST registration - revocation of cancellation of registration - condonation of delayWithdrawal of appeal - revocation of cancellation of registration - Appeal allowed to be withdrawn and dismissed as withdrawn after revocation of the cancellation of the appellant's GST registration by the proper officer. - HELD THAT: - The appellant appealed against the cancellation of its GST registration on the ground of non-filing of returns and filed the appeal with a delay of 22 days, citing a medical emergency. Prior to the personal hearing, the appellant informed the Commissioner (Appeals) that the jurisdictional officer had revoked the cancellation of registration and that all pending returns had been filed, and requested withdrawal of the appeal. Having received this request and noting revocation of the impugned cancellation by the proper officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) permitted the appellant to withdraw the appeal. No adjudication on the merits of the original cancellation order was undertaken by the appellate authority.Allow withdrawal of the appeal; appeal dismissed as withdrawn.Final Conclusion: The appeal is disposed of as withdrawn pursuant to the appellant's request following revocation of the registration cancellation by the proper officer; no merits adjudication on the cancellation order was made by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Condonation of delay - Extension of limitation due to COVID 19 notifications - Appellate delay condonable under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act - Revocation of cancellation of registration under Rule 23 of the CGST Rules - Compliance with returns and payment as condition for revocationCondonation of delay - Extension of limitation due to COVID 19 notifications - Appellate delay condonable under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act - Whether the delay in filing the appeal was liable to be condoned. - HELD THAT: - The Appellate Authority examined Section 107(1) and (4) of the CGST Act and the representations made by the appellant regarding illness of the accountant, personal circumstances and reliance on the Supreme Court direction extending limitation as well as central notifications issued by CBIC. Having noted that subsection (4) permits condonation of delay only for a further period of one month if sufficient cause is shown, the Authority observed that pandemic related orders and notifications (Notification No.35/2020 and its amendment No.55/2020) extended timelines falling within the prescribed period. On that basis the Authority was inclined to condone the delay and proceeded to decide the appeal on merits. [Paras 7]Delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for consideration on merits.Revocation of cancellation of registration under Rule 23 of the CGST Rules - Compliance with returns and payment as condition for revocation - Whether the cancelled registration should be considered for revocation. - HELD THAT: - The Authority considered Rule 23 of the CGST Rules and CBIC Circular No.99/18/2019 which require that where registration is cancelled for failure to furnish returns, an application for revocation can be entertained only after all returns due up to the date of cancellation are furnished and taxes, interest, penalty and late fees are paid. The appellant produced screenshots of filing of returns and electronic ledger entries showing payment of liabilities up to the date of cancellation. The Authority found that the appellant had furnished pending returns and deposited dues as required. Rather than directly revoking registration, the Authority directed the proper officer to consider the appellant's revocation application after due verification of payment particulars and status of returns, thereby permitting revival of registration subject to verification. [Paras 10, 11, 12]The registration may be considered for revocation; the proper officer is directed to verify returns and payments and then decide the revocation application.Final Conclusion: Delay in filing the appeal is condoned in view of the COVID 19 related extension orders and notifications; on the merits the Appellate Authority found that the appellant has filed returns and paid dues up to the date of cancellation and therefore allowed the appeal and directed the proper officer to consider revocation of registration after due verification of payment particulars and status of returns.

Condonation of delay - extension of limitation due to COVID-19 notifications - refund under Section 54(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - re-credit to electronic credit ledger under Rule 93(2) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - effect of written undertaking as deemed rejection of refund - maintainability of appeal before Appellate AuthorityCondonation of delay - extension of limitation due to COVID-19 notifications - Whether the delay in filing the appeal was to be condoned. - HELD THAT: - The Appellate Authority examined the appellant's explanation for delay, including reliance on the Supreme Court orders relating to extension of limitation during the COVID-19 period and the CBIC notifications adjusting limitation timelines. Having considered Notification No.35/2020 and its amendment by Notification No.55/2020 extending relevant limitation dates, and in view of the COVID-19 situation the Authority found it appropriate to condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceeded to decide the matter on merits of maintainability. [Paras 5]Delay in filing the appeal was condoned and the appeal was admitted for consideration.Refund under Section 54(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - re-credit to electronic credit ledger under Rule 93(2) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - effect of written undertaking as deemed rejection of refund - maintainability of appeal before Appellate Authority - Whether the appeal is maintainable where the appellant had given a written undertaking and the rejected refund amount was re credited to the electronic credit ledger under Rule 93(2). - HELD THAT: - The record shows that the appellant submitted a written request acknowledged by the divisional authority, undertaking that they would not file an appeal against the refund rejection and requesting re credit of the rejected amount to the electronic credit ledger. The jurisdictional authority re credited the rejected refund amount through Form PMT 03 in accordance with Rule 93(2) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The Explanation to Rule 93(2) treats a refund as deemed rejected where the claimant gives such an undertaking that he shall not file an appeal. Having voluntarily given that undertaking and obtained re credit, the appellant thereby forfeited the right to challenge the refund rejection before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority therefore found the appeal non maintainable and declined to go into merits. [Paras 9, 10, 11, 12]Appeal held non maintainable and rejected without adjudication on merits because the appellant had given an undertaking and the amount was re credited under Rule 93(2).Final Conclusion: The Appellate Authority condoned the delay in filing the appeal but rejected the appeal as non maintainable on the ground that the appellant had given a written undertaking and the rejected refund amount was re credited to the electronic credit ledger under Rule 93(2) of the CGST Rules, 2017; accordingly the appeal is dismissed without deciding the merits.

Transition of CENVAT/ITC through TRAN-1 - scope of Section 140 of the CGST Act and Explanation 3 thereto - distinction between cess and tax/duty for transitional credit - retrospective amendment and legislative intent - liability to interest under Section 50(3) on inadmissible ITC - penalty under Section 122 for wrongful availment of input tax creditTransition of CENVAT/ITC through TRAN-1 - scope of Section 140 of the CGST Act and Explanation 3 thereto - distinction between cess and tax/duty for transitional credit - Carrying forward Education Cess, Secondary & Higher Education Cess and Krishi Kalyan Cess through TRAN-1 is not permissible under the GST transitional provisions. - HELD THAT: - The authority held that cesses are distinct levies independent of the basic levy and therefore do not fall within the definition of "eligible duties/taxes" for transition under Section 140. Explanation 3 to Section 140, inserted retrospectively w.e.f. 01.07.2017, excludes cesses from transition; this exclusion must be applied to Section 140 as a whole. The decision of the Madras High Court and the larger bench of the Supreme Court recognizing the separate character of cesses, together with CBIC Circular No.87/06/2019 reiterating that transition of cesses is not allowed, support the conclusion that unutilised cess credits became dead claims and could not be carried forward via TRAN-1. Reversal of such credits in GSTR-3B does not validate a prior impermissible transition where the levy itself is not an "eligible duty."The claim of the appellant to carry forward the cited cesses as ITC through TRAN-1 was disallowed.Liability to interest under Section 50(3) on inadmissible ITC - penalty under Section 122 for wrongful availment of input tax credit - effect of retrospective amendment on interest and penalty - Interest and penalty are leviable where inadmissible transitional ITC of cesses has been availed and not legitimately permissible under Section 140. - HELD THAT: - Having concluded that transition of cess credit was impermissible, the authority applied Section 50(3) to hold that interest is payable on the inadmissibly availed ITC; CBIC guidance indicates that reversals of inadmissible transitional credit do not preclude interest and penalty liability. Further, the act of availing inadmissible ITC amounted to contravention attracting penalty under Section 122. The retrospective amendment and Explanation 3 are taken as clarifying legislative intent that such cess credits were never intended to be transitioned; therefore interest and penalty follow from the inadmissibility rather than being negated by the retrospective change.Interest under Section 50(3) and penalty under Section 122 were held to be exigible in respect of the reversed cess credits.Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed: the carry forward of Education Cess, Secondary & Higher Education Cess (and related cesses) through TRAN-1 was held impermissible under Section 140 (having regard to Explanation 3 and relevant judicial and administrative pronouncements), and interest and penalty were confirmed on the inadmissible transitional ITC.

Refund of unutilized input tax credit - binding effect of an Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling across jurisdictions - time limit for availing input tax credit under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act - relevant date and entitlement under Section 54 of the CGST Act - scope of refund provisions under Section 54 (zero-rated supplies and inverted duty structure)Binding effect of an Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling across jurisdictions - refund of unutilized input tax credit - Whether the AAAR, Maharashtra ruling in favour of the appellant could be relied upon to claim refund of unutilized ITC in Rajasthan. - HELD THAT: - The AAAR, Maharashtra order relied upon by the appellant is binding only on the applicant who sought the ruling and the concerned/jurisdictional officer in respect of that applicant. The appellate authority observed that the AAAR Maharashtra ruling therefore is not binding on the Rajasthan jurisdictional authority and cannot form the basis for allowing the refund claim filed in Rajasthan. The appellate authority also noted that the MAHARAAAR order did not itself direct any refund of ITC. On these grounds the appellant's reliance on the out-of-jurisdiction AAAR order was held to be unsustainable. [Paras 6, 7]AAAR, Maharashtra ruling is not binding on the Rajasthan jurisdictional authority and cannot sustain the refund claim filed in Rajasthan.Relevant date and entitlement under Section 54 of the CGST Act - scope of refund provisions under Section 54 (zero-rated supplies and inverted duty structure) - Whether Section 54 of the CGST Act permits refund of the unutilized ITC claimed by the appellant for the period 2018-2019. - HELD THAT: - On examining Section 54, the appellate authority found that refund provisions are available in specific scenarios (for example, zero-rated supplies without payment of tax and accumulation due to inverted duty structure) and that there is no general provision in Section 54 allowing refund of unutilized ITC of the kind claimed by the appellant. The authority held that the present claim does not fall within the enumerated categories for refund under Section 54 and therefore cannot be allowed under that provision. [Paras 8, 9]The claimed refund of unutilized ITC is not covered by the refund categories in Section 54 and is not permissible under that provision.Time limit for availing input tax credit under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act - refund of unutilized input tax credit - Whether ITC that could not be availed within the time prescribed by Section 16(4) becomes refundable under Section 54. - HELD THAT: - The appellate authority noted that Section 16(4) prescribes the time and manner for availing eligible input tax credit. The appellant admitted that the time limit for taking credit had expired and contended this was due to pendency before the AAR/AAAR. The authority held that an ITC which has lapsed due to limitation under Section 16(4) becomes 'dead' and there is no provision to convert such lapsed/unavailed ITC into a refund under Section 54. Consequently, the argument that refund should be granted because AAAR subsequently allowed eligibility was rejected. [Paras 10]ITC not availed within the time prescribed by Section 16(4) is not refundable under Section 54; the appellant's contention to the contrary is rejected.Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed and the refund claim for unutilized input tax credit related to cash carry vans for the period 2018-2019 is rejected: the out-of-jurisdiction AAAR order cannot be relied upon in Rajasthan, the claim does not fall within the refund categories under Section 54, and ITC lapsed under Section 16(4) is not refundable.

Relevant date for refund of unutilised input tax credit on export of goods without payment of tax - application of Explanation (2) clause (a) of Section 54 - two year limitation period for refund measured from the relevant date - export goods manifest (EGM) as proof of shipment - condonation of delay in filing appeal under Section 107(4)Relevant date for refund of unutilised input tax credit on export of goods without payment of tax - application of Explanation (2) clause (a) of Section 54 - The relevant date for filing refund of accumulated input tax credit in respect of goods exported without payment of tax is governed by clause (a) of Explanation (2) of Section 54 and not by clause (e). - HELD THAT: - The adjudicator found that clause (a) of Explanation (2) of Section 54 applies where refund is in respect of goods exported out of India and prescribes the date on which the ship or aircraft in which such goods are loaded leaves India as the relevant date. The appellant's reliance on the unamended clause (e) (relating to unutilised ITC under certain other provisions) was rejected because clause (e) is applicable to refund of unutilised input tax credit in cases arising under the inverted duty structure (first proviso to sub section (3)) and not to exports without payment of tax. The decision therefore applies clause (a) to compute the relevant date for the present export consignments. [Paras 11, 13]Clause (a) of Explanation (2) of Section 54 governs the relevant date for the refund claim in the present case; clause (e) is not applicable.Two year limitation period for refund measured from the relevant date - export goods manifest (EGM) as proof of shipment - The refund claim filed by the appellant is time barred as it was submitted beyond two years from the relevant date determined by the shipment/EGM dates. - HELD THAT: - The concerned division recorded EGM entries showing the goods left India on 1 9 2017 and 23 12 2017. Applying clause (a) of Explanation (2) of Section 54, the relevant dates are the shipment dates reflected in the EGMs, which are accepted as proof of export. The refund applications were filed on 30 6 2020 and 29 7 2020, which are after the two year period from the relevant dates (i.e., after 1 9 2019 and 23 12 2019 respectively). Notifications extending filing dates due to COVID 19 do not alter the computation because the relevant date is the shipment date; accordingly the adjudicating authority correctly held the refund claim to be time barred. [Paras 12, 13]Refund claim rejected as time barred; the adjudicating authority's order upholding time bar is sustained.Final Conclusion: Delay in filing the appeal was condoned under Section 107(4); on merits the relevant date for the refund is the shipment date under clause (a) of Explanation (2) to Section 54, the appellant's refund claim was filed beyond the two year limitation from those dates and the appeal is therefore dismissed with rejection of the refund claim upheld.

Carry forward of cesses on transition to GST - refund of cesses reversed in GSTR-3B - cash refund of unutilized cesses - vested right to cenvat credit - interaction of Explanation (3) to Section 140 and refund under Section 54Carry forward of cesses on transition to GST - interaction of Explanation (3) to Section 140 and refund under Section 54 - cash refund of unutilized cesses - Admissibility of refund of cesses which were carried in TRAN-1 and subsequently reversed in GSTR-3B, claimed under Section 54 in the category 'Any Other' for August, 2018. - HELD THAT: - The appeal was decided on the basis that Explanation (3) to Section 140 of the CGST Act (inserted by amendment with retrospective effect from 1-7-2017) excludes certain cesses from being carried forward into the GST credit ledger, and that once transition of such cesses to the GST credit ledger is inadmissible, a cash refund of those cesses reversed in GSTR-3B is not permissible under Section 54. The order refers to the Hon'ble Madras High Court decision upholding the effect of Explanation (3) and notes absence of any explicit provision in Section 54 permitting cash refund of such transitioned cesses. In view of these statutory effects and the cited judicial authorities favouring the revenue, the Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the adjudicating authority rightly rejected the refund claim. [Paras 8, 9, 11]Refund claim for cesses reversed in August, 2018 is not admissible and the rejection under Section 54 is upheld.Vested right to cenvat credit - cash refund of unutilized cesses - Whether decisions relied on by the appellant (including Eicher Motors and certain CESTAT orders) mandate allowance of refund of such cesses in the present case. - HELD THAT: - The appellant relied on precedents holding that a right to credit may be vested and that refund may be allowable where credits became unutilizable due to change in law. The Commissioner (Appeals) acknowledged these authorities but observed conflicting judicial outcomes on the issue. It was recorded that certain CESTAT orders in favour of claimants have been challenged by the department and that High Court and Tribunal decisions exist against allowing cash refund of cesses. Given the lack of finality and the pendency of departmental appeals against favourable CESTAT orders, reliance on those decisions did not warrant allowing the refund in the present appeal. [Paras 10]Precedents cited by the appellant do not compel allowance of the refund in the present circumstances because the legal position is not finally settled and contrary authoritative decisions exist.Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed; the adjudicating authority's rejection of the refund claim for cesses reversed in August, 2018 is affirmed.

Refund of tax under Section 54 - relevant date for limitation - reversal of input tax credit as tax - mistake of fact or mutual mistake and commencement of limitation - intimation in Electronic Credit Ledger (Form PMT-04) not a refund application - condonation of delay in filing appealCondonation of delay in filing appeal - Whether delay in filing the appeals was to be condoned - HELD THAT: - The Appellate Authority found the appeals were filed beyond the three months prescribed under Section 107(1). Having considered the reasons advanced (disruption due to COVID-19 and illness of a partner) and the appellant's explanation, the Authority exercised discretion under Section 107(4) to condone the delay and proceeded to decide the appeals on merits. [Paras 6]Delay in filing the appeals is condoned and the appeals are heard on merits.Reversal of input tax credit as tax - refund of tax under Section 54 - Whether the amounts reversed by the appellant are deposits/pre-deposits or constitute tax such that refund must be claimed under Section 54 - HELD THAT: - The Authority examined the facts and noted the amounts related to transitional credit availed under Section 140 and reflected in GSTR-3B. The appellant themselves reversed those credits in subsequent returns and treated the amounts as tax liabilities. The Authority held that input tax credit is tax in nature and eligible credit reversed and reflected in returns amounts to tax paid/reversed under the GST law. Consequently, the contention that the reversed sums are mere deposits not subject to Section 54 was rejected as an afterthought. [Paras 6]The reversal of input tax credit constitutes tax (not a mere deposit), and refund procedure under Section 54 is the applicable remedy.Relevant date for limitation - refund of tax under Section 54 - Whether the date of reversal/payment of credit (1-2-2018 / 2-2-2018) or the date of discovery of mistake (departmental audit completion) is the relevant date for computing the two-year limitation under Section 54 - HELD THAT: - The Authority found no evidence of a mutual mistake or that the reversal was caused by an order or direction amounting to a refund-triggering event. The appellant had reversed the credit themselves and did not timely object. The Authority held that where refund is claimed under the category 'Any Other', clause (h) of sub-section (14)(2) applies and the relevant date is the date of payment. Accordingly, the relevant date for limitation was the date of reversal (1-2-2018 / 2-2-2018), not the later departmental audit date relied upon by the appellant. Reliance on decisions under earlier Central Excise jurisprudence was held inapposite to change the relevant date in the facts of this case. [Paras 6, 7]The relevant date for limitation is the date of payment/reversal; the refund applications filed on 29-7-2020 were beyond two years and time-barred.Intimation in Electronic Credit Ledger (Form PMT-04) not a refund application - relevant date for limitation - Whether the appellant's earlier intimation by Form PMT-04 could be treated as the refund claim date or interrupt the limitation period under Section 54 - HELD THAT: - The Authority examined the appellant's contention that a PMT-04 intimation dated 7-12-2019 constituted an earlier refund claim or relevant initiating act. It observed that PMT-04 is an intimation mechanism under the CGST Rules for discrepancy in electronic ledgers and is not a statutory refund application under the refund provisions. Therefore the date of PMT-04 cannot be treated as the relevant date for computation of limitation under Section 54. [Paras 6, 7]Form PMT-04 intimation is not a refund application and cannot be treated as the relevant date for limitation; it does not cure the delay.Final Conclusion: The Appellate Authority condoned the delay in filing the appeals but upheld the impugned orders: the amounts reversed are treated as tax, the refund claims fall to be governed by Section 54 with the date of reversal as the relevant date, the refund applications filed on 29-7-2020 are time-barred, and both appeals are dismissed.

Revocation of cancellation of registration under Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Requirement to furnish returns and pay tax, interest and late fee before revocation - Power of the proper officer to revoke or reject revocation application for reasons to be recorded - Exclusion of limitation period due to COVID-19 (Supreme Court suo motu orders)Exclusion of limitation period due to COVID-19 (Supreme Court suo motu orders) - The delay in filing the appeal was excused and the appeal is not time barred. - HELD THAT: - The Commissioner (Appeals) applied the Supreme Court's suo motu orders extending and excluding the limitation period for proceedings affected by the COVID 19 pandemic, including the restoration of the order dated 23.03.2020. In view of those directions - which excluded the period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 and provided a 90 day availability where applicable - the appeal filed with a 90 day delay from the normal period was held to be within the extended/excluded limitation and therefore maintainable. The appeal was admitted and proceeded to be decided on merits. [Paras 5]Delay condoned; appeal not time barred and admitted for adjudication on merits.Revocation of cancellation of registration under Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Requirement to furnish returns and pay tax, interest and late fee before revocation - Power of the proper officer to revoke or reject revocation application for reasons to be recorded - Whether the appellant had complied with the conditions for seeking revocation of cancellation and the course to be followed by the proper officer. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal examined the requirements of Rule 23 and the CBIC clarification that where registration is cancelled for failure to furnish returns, revocation applications are not maintainable until pending returns are filed and amounts due are paid. The appellant produced GSTR 3B for October 2020 (till cancellation) and representation that tax, late fee and interest up to the date of cancellation had been deposited, with interest (if any) to be ascertained and paid. On the materials before it the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the appellant had filed pending returns and deposited tax liabilities and late fee, thus meeting the preconditions under Rule 23. The matter as to formal revocation was left to the proper officer to decide after the applicant files the prescribed revocation application (FORM GST REG 21) and after due verification of payments and returns; the proper officer retains the statutory power to revoke by FORM GST REG 22 or to reject after issuing show cause notice, with reasons to be recorded. [Paras 10]Appellant found to have complied with prerequisites; directed to file revocation application and directed proper officer to consider and verify payment particulars and returns and pass appropriate order.Final Conclusion: The appeal was admitted as not time barred in view of the Supreme Court's COVID 19 limitation orders; on merits the appellant was found to have complied with the preconditions for seeking revocation of cancellation and was directed to file the revocation application, with the proper officer ordered to verify payments/returns and decide the revocation application in accordance with Rule 23.

Confiscation under Section 130 of the CGST Act - Seizure under Section 67 and Rule 139 of the CGST Rules - Penalty under Section 122 and Section 125 of the CGST Act - Duty to maintain accounts under Section 35 and Rule 56 - Condonation of delay under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act - Principles of natural justice and judicial disciplineCondonation of delay under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act - Appeal delay and condonation - HELD THAT: - The appellant filed the appeal 13 days beyond the normal period. The Appellate Authority applied Section 107(4) and was satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause; accordingly the delay was condoned and the appeals were admitted for decision on merits.Delay of 13 days condoned and appeals admitted for consideration on merits.Seizure under Section 67 and Rule 139 of the CGST Rules - Duty to maintain accounts under Section 35 and Rule 56 - Confiscation under Section 130 of the CGST Act - Existence of excess stock at time of physical verification and propriety of confiscation - HELD THAT: - The Authority reviewed the search proceedings, physical stock verification carried out in presence of independent witnesses and the manager, and statements recorded under the law. The manager admitted that stock registers were not maintained at the factory and the partner also accepted the panchnama and related statement. The Authority rejected the appellant's later contention that records were elsewhere with an accountant and that non-production was a bona fide technical lapse. In view of the statutory obligation under Section 35 to keep accounts at principal place of business and the requirement to produce books on demand under Rule 56, the Authority found contravention and upheld seizure under Section 67 and confiscation under Section 130 (including offering redemption fine in lieu of confiscation).Findings of excess/unaccounted stock sustained; seizure and confiscation upheld.Penalty under Section 122 and Section 125 of the CGST Act - Mens rea and imposition of penalty - Validity of penalties under Sections 122 and 125 and liability of partner - HELD THAT: - The Authority examined the evidence, including admissions and failure to maintain or produce stock records, and concluded that the contraventions (failure to keep/produce accounts, and conduct indicating intent to evade tax by non-accounting and non-filing) justified imposition of penalties under Sections 122(1)(xvi), 122(1)(xviii) and 125. The Authority further held that the partner, being the key person managing the firm's affairs and having admitted the facts in his statement, could be individually liable under Section 125; there is no bar in law to imposing penalty on both the firm and its partner where facts justify it.Penalties under Sections 122 and 125 upheld; partner held individually liable under Section 125.Principles of natural justice and judicial discipline - Whether principles of natural justice and judicial discipline were followed - HELD THAT: - The Authority noted service of show cause notice, opportunity of personal hearing (including virtual hearing) and examination of the appellant's submissions and cited case law. The Authority recorded that the adjudicating authority considered the submissions and explained why cited precedents were not applicable, and therefore the appellant's contention that natural justice or judicial discipline was breached was rejected.No breach of principles of natural justice or judicial discipline found; contention rejected.Final Conclusion: The appeals are dismissed on merits: the delay in filing was condoned, the adjudicating authority's findings of unaccounted/excess stock and consequent seizure and confiscation were upheld, penalties under Sections 122 and 125 (including on the partner) were sustained, and no breach of natural justice was found.

Limitation for refund under Section 54 - two years from the relevant date - relevant date for refund of exported goods - date on which ship or aircraft in which goods are loaded leaves India - extension of due date by Notification No. 35/2020 and amendment substituting dates to 31-8-2020 - requirement to rectify deficiencies and file a fresh refund application under Rule 90(3) - consequence of resubmission after deficiency - treated as a fresh application for limitationLimitation for refund under Section 54 - two years from the relevant date - relevant date for refund of exported goods - date on which ship or aircraft in which goods are loaded leaves India - requirement to rectify deficiencies and file a fresh refund application under Rule 90(3) - consequence of resubmission after deficiency - treated as a fresh application for limitation - Refund claims filed by the appellant in respect of inputs used in exported goods were time barred. - HELD THAT: - The appeals concern refund claims for shipments in April 2018 to August 2018. Section 54(1) requires a refund application to be made within two years from the relevant date; Section 54(14)(2) defines relevant date for goods exported by sea as the date the ship in which the goods are loaded leaves India. The notified extension moved the due date to 31-08-2020 for compliances falling between 20-03-2020 and 30-08-2020. The appellant initially filed refund applications on 27-08-2020 but, on receipt of FORM GST RFD-03 pointing out deficiencies, submitted fresh applications on 08-09-2020. The export documents (EGMs) establish that the shipments left India on or before 31-08-2018, so the two-year limitation expired on or before 31-08-2020 as extended. Rule 90(3) mandates that where deficiencies are communicated the proper officer shall require filing of a fresh refund application after rectification; a rectified/resubmitted application is accordingly to be treated as a fresh application for the purposes of limitation. Applying these provisions, the resubmitted applications dated 08-09-2020 were filed after the expiry of the two-year period and therefore were time barred. The adjudicating authority's rejection on limitation grounds is upheld. [Paras 13, 14, 15]All five refund claims are time barred and the adjudicating authority correctly rejected the refund applications.Final Conclusion: The Commissioner (Appeals) affirms the Orders-in-Original and dismisses all five appeals, holding the refund applications (filed after rectification) to be barred by the two year limitation computed from the relevant dates of shipment.

Condonation of delay under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 - refund of tax under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 - sanction of refund in original mode of payment (cash/credit) under amended Rules 86(4A) and 92(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - prospective application of delegated legislation / non-retroactivity of rule amendmentCondonation of delay under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Whether the appeal filed on 23-11-2020 was within time or liable to be condoned. - HELD THAT: - The appeal was filed 26 days beyond the three-month period prescribed by Section 107(1). The appellant explained that the office of its authorised representative was closed due to COVID-19 and that portal filing attempts and helpdesk support had failed. The Appellate Authority found the reasons sufficient within the scope of sub-section (4) of Section 107 and exercised the discretionary power to condone delay up to one month, thereby admitting the appeal for adjudication on merits. [Paras 7]Delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for decision on merits.Refund of tax under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 - sanction of refund in original mode of payment (cash/credit) under amended Rules 86(4A) and 92(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - prospective application of delegated legislation / non-retroactivity of rule amendment - Whether the appellant's refund claim for excess IGST paid in January 2020 was admissible for recredit to electronic credit ledger under the amendments to Rules 86 and 92 and Circular No. 135/05/2020. - HELD THAT: - The appellant paid IGST in January 2020 and filed a refund claim for excess payment. Amendment by Notification No. 16/2020 (inserting Rule 86(4A) and Rule 92(1A)) and Circular No. 135/05/2020 prescribe that refunds of amounts paid by debiting the electronic credit ledger are to be recredited to that ledger (via FORM GST PMT-03) and that refunds should be paid proportionately in the original mode of payment. However, those amendments and the Circular were made effective from 31-3-2020, whereas the disputed tax payment and the refund period relate to January, 2020. The Appellate Authority held that the amended rules cannot be given retrospective effect to govern a refund claim pertaining to January 2020 and therefore the relief of recredit under the amended provisions could not be granted to the appellant. [Paras 12, 13]The amendment to Rules 86 and 92 and the Circular cannot be applied retrospectively to the refund claim for January, 2020; the claim for recredit to electronic credit ledger is not allowable under the amended provisions for that period.Final Conclusion: Delay in filing the appeal is condoned; on merits the appeal is rejected because the amendments to Rules 86(4A) and 92(1A) and the clarificatory Circular, effective from 31-3-2020, cannot be applied retrospectively to the refund claim relating to January, 2020, and hence recredit of the excess payment to the electronic credit ledger is not granted.

Appeals to Appellate Authority - Condonation of delay - Refund under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Electronic Cash Ledger debit (DRC-03) - Verification and processing of refund claims - Principle of natural justiceAppeals to Appellate Authority - Condonation of delay - Whether the appeal filed by the appellant, delayed by 11 days, should be admitted. - HELD THAT: - The appeal in Form GST APL-01 was filed on 16-11-2020, which was 11 days beyond the three-month period prescribed by Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Sub-section (4) of Section 107 permits the Appellate Authority to allow presentation of an appeal within a further period of one month if satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the prescribed period. The Appellate Authority examined the explanation for delay and, applying the statutory provision, was inclined to accept the delay and admit the appeal for decision on merits. [Paras 7]Delay of 11 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for consideration on merits.Refund under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Electronic Cash Ledger debit (DRC-03) - Verification and processing of refund claims - Principle of natural justice - Whether the rejection of the refund claim should be sustained where the adjudicating authority found no debit in the Electronic Cash Ledger at the time of initial examination but the appellant subsequently produced evidence of a DRC-03 debit entry. - HELD THAT: - The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim on the ground that no debit from the Electronic Cash Ledger was made prior to issuance of the appellate order or filing of the refund claim. The appellant explained lack of a debit entry at the time of filing as due to unfamiliarity with the refund process, and subsequently generated DRC-03 (Debit Entry No. DC0807200250413 dated 25-7-2020) debiting IGST and the equivalent penalty from the Electronic Cash Ledger, and furnished the copy in reply to the show cause notice. The Appellate Authority found that the DRC-03 and the appellant's submissions had not been considered by the adjudicating authority and, applying the principle of natural justice, considered it appropriate to have the records and submissions verified afresh. Rather than deciding the refund entitlement finally on the present record, the Appellate Authority directed verification of the debit entry and processing of the refund claim in accordance with Section 54 of the CGST Act and the rules thereunder, with the appellant required to cooperate with the department. [Paras 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]The rejection is set aside for the purpose of verification; the matter is remitted for verification of the Electronic Cash Ledger debit and processing of the refund claim in accordance with law.Final Conclusion: The appeal is admitted by condoning the delay; the previous rejection of the refund claim is vacated for verification and the refund claim is to be processed in accordance with Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 after verification of the Electronic Cash Ledger debit (DRC-03).