Best judgment assessment under Section 62 of the CGST Act, 2017 - notice to return defaulters under Section 46 of the CGST Act, 2017 - assessment of unregistered persons under Section 63 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Rule 100(2) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - requirement of notice in FORM GST ASMT-14 and opportunity to reply - principles of natural justice and requirement of hearing before adverse decisionNotice to return defaulters under Section 46 of the CGST Act, 2017 - best judgment assessment under Section 62 of the CGST Act, 2017 - principles of natural justice and requirement of hearing before adverse decision - Validity of the impugned best-judgment assessment insofar as it covers months not mentioned in the show-cause notice and whether the assessment was passed after giving the appellant an opportunity to be heard. - HELD THAT: - The adjudicating authority's show-cause notice in Form GSTR-3A dated 19-11-2019 specified the period as October, 2018 to September, 2019, whereas the ASMT-13 best-judgment order dated 30-1-2020 assesses tax for January, 2019 to December, 2019. Paragraph 9 records that three months (October, November and December 2019) were not included in the notice and that the appellant's reply to the notice was not considered. The order therefore identifies a procedural defect in issuing an adverse best-judgment order for periods not covered by the notice and in failing to afford effective opportunity of hearing prior to passing the assessment. Given these deficiencies the matter cannot be allowed to stand without fresh consideration in conformity with the requirement to issue adequate notice and to afford opportunity to be heard. [Paras 9]The assessment insofar as it proceeds for months not covered by the notice and without considering the appellant's reply is procedurally defective and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration after observing notice and hearing requirements.Assessment of unregistered persons under Section 63 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Rule 100(2) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - requirement of notice in FORM GST ASMT-14 and opportunity to reply - Effect of cancellation of the appellant's registration prior to passing of the ASMT-13 order and consequent applicability of Section 63 and Rule 100(2) procedural requirements. - HELD THAT: - The record shows registration of the appellant was cancelled with effect from 21-1-2020, while the ASMT-13 order was passed on 30-1-2020. Paragraph 10 notes that in these circumstances Section 63 becomes applicable and, under sub rule (2) of Rule 100, the proper officer is required to issue FORM GST ASMT-14 containing grounds for best judgment assessment, serve a summary, allow fifteen days for reply and thereafter pass the order in FORM GST ASMT-15. The findings record non-compliance with the procedure mandated by Section 63 and Rule 100(2). Accordingly the matter requires fresh adjudication in conformity with those statutory and procedural requirements. [Paras 10, 11]Because registration was cancelled before the ASMT-13 order, Section 63 and Rule 100(2) procedures apply; on that basis the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to follow the statutory procedure and issue fresh speaking orders after affording the prescribed opportunity to reply.Final Conclusion: The appeal is disposed of by remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority with directions to comply with the applicable statutory procedure (including issuance of appropriate notice and opportunity to reply under Section 63 and Rule 100(2) where relevant), to consider the appellant's replies, and to pass a fresh speaking order observing principles of natural justice.

Communication/service of notice on Common Portal - opportunity of hearing / principles of natural justice - consideration of reply and documentary submissions before adjudication - requirement of a speaking order - remand for de novo adjudicationCommunication/service of notice on Common Portal - opportunity of hearing / principles of natural justice - Whether the show cause notice (RFD-08) and final order (RFD-06) were effectively communicated and whether the appellant was afforded an opportunity of hearing. - HELD THAT: - The appellate authority found that the show cause notice issued on 19-2-2020 was reflected only by its number on the Common Portal and could not be downloaded by the appellant, and that the appellant received only an email intimation of issuance of the sanction order without the order itself being made available. The authority recorded that, as a result, the appellant was not given an effective service of the notice nor an opportunity to put forward submissions in a manner contemplated by the statute and allied rules, and that principles of natural justice (including provisions requiring opportunity of hearing and recording reasons) were not complied with. Having reached this conclusion, the authority remanded the matter for fresh consideration with directions to afford personal hearing and to verify the appellant's averments regarding communication and hearing. [Paras 5, 6, 7, 8]Findings on defective communication and failure to afford opportunity of hearing; matter remanded to the Proper Officer to verify the appellant's averments, afford personal hearing and decide afresh.Consideration of reply and documentary submissions before adjudication - requirement of a speaking order - remand for de novo adjudication - Whether the Proper Officer considered the appellant's reply (GST RFD-09) and the DRC-03 filed, and whether the refund order recorded reasons and considered submissions. - HELD THAT: - The appellate authority observed that although the appellant filed a reply on the portal and submitted DRC-03 to debit the amount as per the prescribed procedure, the Proper Officer did not consider these submissions nor record satisfaction or reasons in the order. Reliance was placed on statutory provisions and rules requiring that a refund not be rejected without giving opportunity of hearing and that the officer's order set out relevant facts and basis of decision. Given the absence of consideration and absence of a speaking order, the authority directed that the Proper Officer examine the appellant's submissions, give an opportunity of personal hearing, record reasons in a speaking order and decide the refund claim de novo. [Paras 5, 7, 8]Findings that the appellant's reply and DRC-03 were not considered and that the order lacked recorded reasons; matter remanded for verification, consideration of the submissions, grant of personal hearing and passing of a speaking order disposing the refund claim afresh.Final Conclusion: Appeal disposed by remanding the matter to the Proper Officer with directions to verify the appellant's contentions regarding defective service, to consider the replies and DRC-03, to afford personal hearing, and to pass a reasoned speaking order deciding the refund claim de novo in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

Refund premature pending investigation - voluntary deposit under Section 74(5) read with Rule 142(2) & (3) - wrong tax period declared - natural justice - non-provision of third party communicationRefund premature pending investigation - Refund claim held premature because the deposit and claim arise while investigation by DGGSTI (Jaipur Zonal Unit) is pending. - HELD THAT: - The appellate authority recorded that the contested amount was deposited during the course of investigation and that the investigating agency's comments show the matter remains under inquiry. In these circumstances the claim had not attained finality and filing of the refund at that stage was treated as premature. On this basis the authority found no infirmity in the adjudicating authority's rejection of the refund as inadmissible while investigation continues. [Paras 5, 6]Refund claim rejected as premature because investigation is pending; appeal dismissed.Voluntary deposit under Section 74(5) read with Rule 142(2) & (3) - wrong tax period declared - Deposit characterised as voluntary under Section 74(5) read with Rule 142(2) & (3) and the refund was filed for an incorrect period, justifying rejection. - HELD THAT: - The adjudicating authority, relying on the investigating agency's comments, concluded that the amount claimed related to a voluntary deposit made in respect of the financial year 2018-19 under the provisions identified and therefore the taxpayer had declared an incorrect tax period (having filed for March 2020). The appellate authority agreed with this assessment and held that such a filing, purporting to claim refund for a different period while the voluntary deposit relates to an earlier financial year and is subject to investigation, supported rejection of the refund application. [Paras 5, 6]Refund inadmissible on the ground that the deposit was voluntary for FY 2018-19 and the claim was filed for an incorrect period.Natural justice - non-provision of third party communication - Allegation that the DGGSTI letter was not furnished to the appellant was considered but did not lead to interference with the adjudicating authority's order. - HELD THAT: - The appellant contended that the adjudicating authority relied on a letter from DGGSTI which was not supplied to them, contending a breach of natural justice. The appellate authority examined the record, noted the reliance on DGGSTI comments, and nevertheless found no infirmity in the impugned order's conclusion that the refund was premature and inadmissible. The plea regarding non furnishing did not persuade the authority to set aside the rejection. [Paras 5, 6]Claim of non supply of DGGSTI communication did not warrant setting aside the rejection; appeal dismissed.Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed and the Order in Original rejecting the refund claim is upheld on the grounds that the amount was a voluntary deposit relating to financial year 2018-19, the refund application was filed for an incorrect period (March 2020), and the claim is premature while the DGGSTI investigation remains pending.

Violation of principles of natural justice - non-speaking order - remand for fresh adjudication - opportunity of hearing and adjournment under Section 75 - requirement of speaking order under Rule 92 - time bar under Section 54Violation of principles of natural justice - opportunity of hearing and adjournment under Section 75 - non-speaking order - Impugned Orders-in-Original were passed without affording proper opportunity of hearing and amounted to non-speaking orders in breach of principles of natural justice. - HELD THAT: - The appellant submitted written replies to the show cause notices within the prescribed period and sought adjournment of personal hearing in view of COVID 19 restrictions. The adjudicating authority nevertheless rejected the refund claims by brief remarks that the refunds were time barred without considering the appellant's replies, adjournment request or recording reasons. The statutory scheme (Section 75(4)-(6)) and Rule 92(3) proviso require opportunity of hearing, consideration of show cause replies and that no refund application be rejected without hearing; CBEC Circular No.17/17/2017-GST reiterates natural justice. A non speaking order that does not address the appellant's submissions or state reasons for rejecting the claim amounts to denial of natural justice and is unsustainable. [Paras 6, 8, 9, 10, 11]Findings of breach of natural justice and that the impugned orders are non speaking; matter remanded for fresh adjudication after affording opportunity of hearing and considering the appellant's submissions.Remand for fresh adjudication - requirement of speaking order under Rule 92 - time bar under Section 54 - Whether the question of admissibility of the refund (including the time bar under Section 54 and related factual contentions) was to be finally decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) or reconsidered by the adjudicating authority. - HELD THAT: - The appellate authority did not decide the merits of the refund claims on law or facts because the original orders rejected the claims summarily as time barred without dealing with the appellant's submissions or documentary evidence. In view of the procedural infirmity and absence of reasoning on the time bar and other contentions, the correct course is to remit the matters to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh. The adjudicating authority is directed to pass a speaking order addressing the appellant's replies, consider requests for adjournment where sufficient cause is shown, and then decide the admissibility of the refund claims (including any question of limitation under Section 54) in accordance with law. [Paras 10, 11]All appeals disposed by remanding the matters to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after affording proper opportunity of hearing and passing speaking orders.Final Conclusion: Appeals disposed by remanding the refund claims to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision: the adjudicating authority shall afford the appellant an opportunity of hearing, consider the appellant's written submissions and adjournment requests, and pass a speaking order addressing the time bar and other factual and legal contentions in accordance with Sections 75 and 54 and Rule 92.

Export of services - place of supply outside India - intermediary - arranges or facilitates supply between two or more persons - place of supply under Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act (intermediary services) - time bar under Section 54(1) of the CGST ActTime bar under Section 54(1) of the CGST Act - Whether the refund claims filed by the appellant were time barred - HELD THAT: - The appellant filed refund applications on the portal within the two year period from the relevant date and thereafter responded to multiple deficiency memos, with the final submission accepted on 27 02 2020. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the appellant's explanation that the common portal prevented filing of subsequent claims while an earlier deficiency memo was pending and held that the original filings were within the limitation prescribed under Section 54(1). Consequently, the refund claims were not barred by time limitation. [Paras 6]Refund claims not time barredIntermediary - arranges or facilitates supply between two or more persons - place of supply under Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act (intermediary services) - export of services - place of supply outside India - Whether the services provided by the appellants were intermediary services and whether they qualify as export of services - HELD THAT: - The appellants acted for foreign universities to identify and enrol prospective Indian students and received commission tied to enrollments and course fees; promotion was incidental to this principal activity. The authority found, and the Commissioner (Appeals) agreed, that such activity constituted acting as a representative/agent (a go between) of the foreign universities and therefore falls within the definition of 'intermediary'. By statutory scheme, where services are intermediary services the place of supply is the location of the supplier under Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act; consequently the place of supply was in India and the services did not satisfy condition (iii) of the export of services definition (place of supply outside India). Reliance on judicial and advance ruling authorities accepting the same legal principle was noted. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the impugned orders on merits accordingly. [Paras 6, 7]Services are intermediary services; place of supply is the supplier's location in India and the supplies are not export of servicesFinal Conclusion: The appeals succeed only on limitation: the refund claims are not time barred, but on merits the Commissioner (Appeals) upholds the rejection of refunds because the appellant's services are intermediary services whose place of supply is in India and therefore do not qualify as export of services; the appeals are disposed of accordingly.

Refund under Section 54(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - limitation period for refund claims - two years from the relevant date - relevant date for refund claims - date of filing of GSTR 3B / date of payment - refund of "any other amount paid" includes excess tax paid - rectification of returns under Section 39(9) of the CGST Act, 2017 - principles of ejusdem generis and noscitur a sociis (as argued)Refund under Section 54(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - limitation period for refund claims - two years from the relevant date - refund of "any other amount paid" includes excess tax paid - principles of ejusdem generis and noscitur a sociis (as argued) - Whether the refund claims for excess payment are barred by the two year limitation under Section 54(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and whether the phrase "any other amount paid" is to be restricted so as to exclude the appellant's excess payments. - HELD THAT: - The Commissioner (Appeals) considered Section 54(1) which requires any person claiming refund of "any tax and interest, if any, paid on such tax or any other amount paid by him" to apply within two years from the relevant date. The adjudicating authority treated the appellant's claims as refunds of excess tax falling within "any other amount paid" and counted limitation from the GSTR 3B filing dates. The appellant's contention that "any other amount paid" should be confined by ejusdem generis to items of the same genus as "tax and interest" and thus should exclude mistaken payments was examined and rejected. The authority applied the statutory language and the defined relevant date scheme, concluding that excess payment of tax is encompassed by "any other amount paid" and is thereby subject to the two year time limit. Precedents and earlier law relied upon by the appellant were held distinguishable on facts. The appellate authority found no reason to read down the statutory limitation or to accept the ejusdem generis argument to exclude the appellant's inadvertent payments from the scope of Section 54(1). [Paras 5, 6, 10, 11]Refund claims for the periods July 2017, September 2017 and October 2017 are barred by limitation under Section 54(1) and the excess payments fall within "any other amount paid" attracting the two year time limit.Rectification of returns under Section 39(9) of the CGST Act, 2017 - relevant date for refund claims - date of filing of GSTR 3B / date of payment - Whether the appellant could invoke Section 39(9) (rectification of returns) or rely on non operationality of portal/forms to avoid the limitation bar and to treat the relevant date as the date of discovery (e.g., filing of annual return). - HELD THAT: - The Commissioner (Appeals) reviewed Section 39(9) and observed that rectification is subject to the proviso timelines and to the provisions of Sections 37 and 38; circulars and guidelines provide mechanisms (including Table 9 of GSTR 1 and procedures referenced in departmental circulars) for rectification and to deal with mismatches. The appellant did not demonstrate any concerted effort to avail prescribed rectification mechanisms or provide corroborative evidence of attempts to rectify GSTR 3B; nor did the facts show that the department alone prevented rectification. The authority therefore did not accept the submission that the relevant date should be the date of discovery (such as filing of GSTR 9) or that portal non availability excused the limitation. Consequently, the relevant date remained the date of filing GSTR 3B for computing the two year period. [Paras 8, 9, 10]Section 39(9) and the rectification mechanism do not operate so as to extend or displace the relevant date used for limitation where the taxpayer has not availed or shown attempts to avail the prescribed rectification avenues; the relevant date for limitation was the GSTR 3B filing date.Final Conclusion: The appeals are dismissed; the adjudicating authority correctly held that the refund claims for July 2017, September 2017 and October 2017 were time barred under Section 54(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and therefore the refunds were rightly rejected.

Input as defined under Section 2(59) of the CGST Act, 2017 - refund of unutilised input tax credit on account of inverted duty structure under Section 54(3)(ii) of the CGST Act, 2017 - treatment of traded goods supplied 'as such' for purposes of input tax credit refund - applicability of Rule 89(5) formula for refund on account of inverted duty structureInput as defined under Section 2(59) of the CGST Act, 2017 - refund of unutilised input tax credit on account of inverted duty structure under Section 54(3)(ii) of the CGST Act, 2017 - treatment of traded goods supplied 'as such' for purposes of input tax credit refund - Whether the goods procured and supplied as such by the appellant qualify as 'input' and entitle the appellant to refund of accumulated ITC under the inverted duty structure provision of Section 54(3)(ii). - HELD THAT: - The appellant traded in Scientific and Technical Instruments, Apparatus and Equipment procured on payment of tax at 18% and supplied some consignments to public funded research institutes at a concessional 5% rate under specified notifications while supplying identical goods to other purchasers at 18%. The adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) examined the definition of 'input' (goods other than capital goods used or intended to be used by a supplier in the course or furtherance of business) and the proviso in Section 54(3)(ii) which permits refund where credit has accumulated because rate of tax on inputs is higher than on outputs. The authority found that the appellant made sales of the same goods both at the reduced rate and at the full rate, performed no further processing, and effected no value addition; consequently the goods could not be treated as 'inputs' qualifying for refund under the inverted duty structure proviso. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that on these facts the proviso for refund under Section 54(3)(ii) is not attracted and the case law relied upon by the appellant did not apply squarely to these factual circumstances.The goods supplied by the appellant as such do not qualify as 'input' for the purposes of refund under Section 54(3)(ii); the refund claims are not allowable.Final Conclusion: The appeals are dismissed and the impugned order rejecting the refund claims for the periods April to September 2019 and October to December 2019 is upheld.

Cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns - Revocation of cancellation of registration - Restoration of GST registration - Withdrawal of appealCancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns - Revocation of cancellation of registration - Restoration of GST registration - Withdrawal of appeal - Appeal dismissed as withdrawn after restoration of the appellant's GST registration and withdrawal of the appeal. - HELD THAT: - The adjudicating authority had cancelled the appellant's GST registration on account of continuous non-filing of returns and had rejected the revocation application for failure to reply to the show cause notice. On personal hearing the appellant's representative stated that the GSTIN had been restored and confirmed by email that the appeal would be withdrawn. The adjudicating authority furnished a report confirming that the GSTIN is active. In view of the restoration of registration and the appellant's withdrawal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the withdrawal and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. [Paras 6, 7]Appeal dismissed as withdrawn following restoration of registration and withdrawal by the appellant.Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed to be withdrawn and is dismissed as withdrawn because the jurisdictional authority restored the appellant's GST registration and the appellant withdrew the appeal.

Cancellation of GST registration - Revocation of cancellation of registration under Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Requirement to furnish returns before filing revocation application - Show cause notice and non-submission of reply - Clarification by Circular No. 99/18/2019-GST - Infructuous appealCancellation of GST registration - Revocation of cancellation of registration under Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Requirement to furnish returns before filing revocation application - Infructuous appeal - Appeal rendered infructuous and rejected because the registration has been reinstated and is shown as active. - HELD THAT: - The adjudicating authority initially cancelled the appellant's GST registration and rejected the revocation application on the ground of non-submission of reply to the show cause notice and non-payment/non-furnishing of returns. Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017 prescribes the procedure for filing and disposal of applications for revocation of cancellation, including the proviso that where cancellation is on account of failure to furnish returns, such returns must be furnished and dues paid before filing revocation. The Board's Circular No. 99/18/2019-GST clarifies these requirements under Rule 23. The appellate authority examined the record, noted the procedural requirements and the adjudicating authority's subsequent action, and recorded that the jurisdictional authority has revoked the cancellation and the GSTIN is presently active. As the principal relief sought in the appeal (restoration of registration) has been achieved by the authority itself, the appeal has become infructuous and is rejected without further adjudication on the merits of the earlier cancellation or the initial rejection of revocation.Appeal rejected as infructuous because the registration has been revoked by the jurisdictional authority and is active.Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed as infructuous in view of the adjudicating authority's revocation of the cancellation and the GST registration being active; no further adjudication on the merits of the original cancellation or earlier rejection of revocation was undertaken.

Cancellation of registration for non-filing of returns - Revocation of cancellation of registration under Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Requirement to furnish returns and pay tax/interest/penalty before filing revocation - Circular clarification on revocation procedure (CBIC Circular No.99/18/2019-GST) - Appeal rendered infructuous by subsequent revocation of registrationCancellation of registration for non-filing of returns - Revocation of cancellation of registration under Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Requirement to furnish returns and pay tax/interest/penalty before filing revocation - Whether the appeal against cancellation and rejection of revocation application could be entertained after the jurisdictional authority had subsequently revoked the cancellation and made the registration active. - HELD THAT: - The adjudicating authority cancelled the appellant's registration on account of continuous non-filing of returns for six months and rejected the application for revocation for failure to furnish a reply to the show cause notice within the stipulated time. Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017 and CBIC Circular No.99/18/2019-GST require that where cancellation arises from failure to furnish returns, returns (and payment of tax/interest/penalty/late fee) due up to the date of cancellation must be furnished before seeking revocation, and returns for the period from cancellation to revocation are to be furnished within thirty days of revocation. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted these legal requirements and the factual position that the jurisdictional authority, subsequent to the impugned order, had itself revoked the cancellation and the GSTIN stands active. Given the subsequent revocation by the proper officer, the appellate forum found that there was no live controversy to be adjudicated on the merits of the earlier cancellation/rejection and that the appeal had become infructuous. [Paras 6, 8, 9]Appeal rejected as infructuous because the jurisdictional authority has since revoked the cancellation and the registration is active; procedural requirements under Rule 23 and CBIC circular noted.Final Conclusion: The appeal against cancellation and rejection of revocation is dismissed as infructuous because the proper officer has subsequently revoked the cancellation and the GST registration is active; the appellant remains bound by the procedural requirements of Rule 23 and the relevant CBIC circular.

Natural justice - speaking order - refund under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 - opportunity of being heard / opportunity of personal hearing - first proviso to sub rule (3) of Rule 92 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - remand for fresh considerationNatural justice - opportunity of being heard / opportunity of personal hearing - speaking order - Impugned orders rejecting refund claims without granting adequate opportunity of personal hearing and without recording reasons were contrary to principles of natural justice and amounted to non speaking orders. - HELD THAT: - The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claims by orders dated 04.04.2020 without discussing applicable law or the appellant's request for adjournment and without a speaking order explaining the reasons for rejection. The appellate forum found that the appellant had sought an alternative date for hearing on 25.03.2020 and that the adjudicating authority neither considered that request nor afforded a proper opportunity to be heard. Non passage of a speaking order and denial of the opportunity to present submissions results in denial of natural justice and renders such orders unsustainable. The Tribunal accordingly set aside the impugned orders and directed a fresh adjudication after affording proper opportunity and passing speaking reasons. [Paras 5, 6, 8]Impugned orders set aside for violation of natural justice; matter remitted for fresh consideration after affording opportunity of personal hearing and passing speaking orders.Refund under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 - first proviso to sub rule (3) of Rule 92 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - remand for fresh consideration - Whether the refund claims should be processed afresh in accordance with statutory procedure and rules. - HELD THAT: - Relying on the first proviso to sub rule (3) of Rule 92, the appellate authority directed that no application for refund be rejected without giving the applicant opportunity of being heard. The appellant was directed to submit all relevant documents to the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority was directed to process the claims in accordance with the provisions and procedure prescribed under the CGST Act, 2017 and the CGST Rules, 2017, consider the appellant's submissions, and pass a speaking order in FORM GST RFD 06 as applicable after giving statutory opportunity and considering any reply in FORM GST RFD 09. [Paras 7, 8]Refund claims remitted to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication and processing in accordance with statutory procedure, after giving the appellant opportunity and recording reasons.Final Conclusion: Appeals allowed to the extent that the Orders in Original dated 04.04.2020 rejecting the refund claims for the periods February 2018, November 2017 and September 2017 are set aside; the matters are remitted to the adjudicating authority to permit submission of documents, to afford an opportunity of personal hearing, and to decide the refund claims afresh in accordance with the CGST Act and Rules with a speaking order.

Deemed export - refund of unutilized input tax credit on deemed exports - compliance with procedural safeguards in Circular No. 14/14/2017-GST - eligibility for refund upon non-compliance with prescribed procedure - Rule 89 of the CGST Rules-claim by recipient or supplierCompliance with procedural safeguards in Circular No. 14/14/2017-GST - eligibility for refund upon non-compliance with prescribed procedure - Rule 89 of the CGST Rules-claim by recipient or supplier - Whether the appellant was required to follow the procedure prescribed in Circular No. 14/14/2017-GST and whether failure to comply with that procedure disentitles the appellant to claim refund of unutilized input tax credit on deemed exports. - HELD THAT: - The adjudicatory findings note that supplies to the appellant, being a 100% EOU, are treated as deemed exports and that Rule 89 permits either recipient or supplier to claim refund where the recipient does not avail ITC and furnishes an undertaking. Circular No. 14/14/2017-GST prescribes specific procedural safeguards for supplies to EOU units, including prior intimation in Form A to the supplier and jurisdictional officers, endorsement of tax invoices, maintenance and monthly submission of digital records in Form B and related audit trail requirements. Paragraph 41 of Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST reiterates that the procedure in Circular No. 14/14/2017-GST must be complied with. The adjudicator found that the appellant did not follow the procedure and failed to comply with the conditions set out in the circular; on that basis the appellant was held not eligible for refund. The appellate authority upheld that conclusion after considering the appellant's submissions and noting that the circular's procedural requirements are mandatory for claiming the refund in the context of deemed exports. [Paras 5, 7, 8, 9]The appellant was required to follow the procedure in Circular No. 14/14/2017-GST; failure to comply with those procedural safeguards disentitles the appellant to the refund, and the refunds were correctly denied.Deemed export - refund of unutilized input tax credit on deemed exports - Whether the case law relied upon by the appellant (M/s. J.K. Lakshmi Cement Ltd.) applied to the facts of these appeals. - HELD THAT: - The appellant relied on precedent to contend that the impugned rejection was illegal. The appellate authority examined the citation and concluded that the facts of that decision are different and therefore the precedent is not applicable to the present facts. No substitutionary legal principle from the cited decision was found to alter the requirement of compliance with the circular and rules governing deemed exports and refund claims in this case. [Paras 10, 11]The cited authority is not applicable on the facts; reliance on it does not affect the conclusion that the refunds were correctly denied.Final Conclusion: Appeals dismissed. The adjudicating authority's rejection of the refund claims for the listed periods is upheld on the ground that the appellant failed to comply with the mandatory procedural safeguards prescribed for deemed export refunds, as set out in Circular No. 14/14/2017-GST and reiterated by Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST.

Natural justice - Opportunity of being heard - Refund under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Reverse charge mechanism (RCM) - Section 17(4) - option for banking companies - Proviso to Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - refund not to be rejected without hearing - Remand for fresh considerationNatural justice - Opportunity of being heard - Proviso to Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - refund not to be rejected without hearing - Whether the Orders-in-Original rejecting the appellant's refund claims were vitiated for denial of opportunity of hearing and breach of principles of natural justice. - HELD THAT: - The adjudicating authority issued FORM GST RFD-08 and proceeded to reject the refund claims without adequately considering the appellant's written request for time to file a reply and without giving a sufficient opportunity for personal hearing. The proviso to rule 92(3) requires that no refund application be rejected without giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard. The Commissioner (Appeals) finds that the adjudicating authority neither considered the appellant's request of 22.10.2019 for 15 days' time nor passed a speaking order detailing reasons after affording a proper hearing. Non-passing of a speaking order and failure to grant reasonable opportunity amounted to denial of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned Orders-in-Original are unsustainable on this ground and are set aside. [Paras 8]Impugned Orders-in-Original rejecting the refund claims are set aside for denial of opportunity of hearing and breach of natural justice; file remitted for fresh consideration.Refund under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Reverse charge mechanism (RCM) - Section 17(4) - option for banking companies - Remand for fresh consideration - Whether the refund claims for ITC (50% of IGST paid under RCM) are admissible and how they should be processed in view of Section 17(4) and the absence of a specific provision for refund of tax paid under RCM. - HELD THAT: - While the adjudicating authority rejected the claims on the basis that the appellant had exercised the option under Section 17(4) (availing 50% ITC and letting the rest lapse) and that refunds of tax paid under RCM are not covered under the claimed category in Section 54, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not finally adjudicate the merits due to the procedural infirmity. The appellate authority directs that the appellant shall submit all relevant documents to the adjudicating authority and that the claims be processed afresh in accordance with the provisions and procedures of the CGST Act, 2017 and CGST Rules, taking into account the contentions on applicability of Section 17(4), the nature of services from foreign banks under RCM, and applicable notifications. The matter is therefore remanded for adjudication on merits after affording full opportunity and passing a speaking order. [Paras 5, 6, 7, 8]Refund claims remitted to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration and adjudication on merits in accordance with law after affording the appellant opportunity to produce documents and be heard.Final Conclusion: The Orders-in-Original dated 07.11.2019 rejecting the appellant's refund claims for October 2017, August 2017 and December 2017 are set aside for denial of opportunity of hearing; the matters are remitted to the adjudicating authority to process and decide the refund claims afresh in accordance with the CGST Act and Rules after the appellant files relevant documents and is afforded a proper hearing, and a speaking order is to be passed.

Seizure and confiscation under Section 67(2) and Section 130 of the CGST Act - validity of search and panchnama proceedings - penalty under Section 122(1)(xvi) and Section 122(1)(xviii) - penalty under Section 122(3) and Section 125 - declaration of additional place of business and Rule 11 of CGST Rules - provisional release and redemption fine in lieu of confiscationSeizure and confiscation under Section 67(2) and Section 130 of the CGST Act - declaration of additional place of business and Rule 11 of CGST Rules - provisional release and redemption fine in lieu of confiscation - Whether the goods seized at the unregistered godown were liable to confiscation and whether the appellants' plea of bona fide non-registration of the additional place of business succeeds. - HELD THAT: - The appellate authority found that during search the proprietor admitted that wholesale activities were carried out from the godown which was not shown as an additional place of business in the registration certificate and that the godown was added only after the search and seizure. The authority noted that no documentary evidence supporting a prior application to register the godown was produced and that the statements recorded (18-9-2018 and 7-1-2019) corroborated the panchnama. On these facts the officer held that the appellant contravened the statutory obligation to declare places of business and thus the goods found at the godown were liable for confiscation under Section 130 read with Rule 139; a redemption fine in lieu of confiscation and conditions for en-cashment of security on failure to produce provisionally released goods were maintained. The appellate authority rejected the contention that non-declaration was a mere technical lapse, treating the subsequent amendment as indicative of mala fide intent to evade GST obligations. [Paras 12, 13, 14, 17]Seizure and confiscation under Section 130 read with Section 67(2) and Rule 139 upheld; plea of bona fide technical non-registration rejected; option of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation sustained.Penalty under Section 122(1)(xvi) and Section 122(1)(xviii) - penalty under Section 125 - Whether penalty under Section 122(1)(xvi) and Section 122(1)(xviii) and under Section 125 of the CGST Act is leviable on M/s. Taj Iron Store. - HELD THAT: - The authority found that the appellants failed to comply with statutory requirements to declare the additional place of business and maintain accounts as mandated by Sections 22, 35 and relevant rules, and that goods were stored at an unregistered premise with concomitant accounting lapses. On this basis, imposition of penalties under Section 122(1)(xvi) and Section 122(1)(xviii) and under Section 125 was sustained. The appellate order records that the appellants' documentary and other submissions did not rebut the finding of contravention, and accordingly the penalties confirmed by the adjudicating authority were not interfered with. [Paras 14, 17]Penalties under Section 122(1)(xvi), Section 122(1)(xviii) and Section 125 imposed on the firm upheld.Penalty under Section 122(3) and Section 125 - Whether penalty under Section 122(3)(a) and Section 125 is leviable on the proprietor for aiding, abetting or dealing with goods liable to confiscation. - HELD THAT: - The authority found that the proprietor supervised day-to-day affairs, accepted the panchnama and statements, and knowingly dealt with goods stored at the unregistered godown. On these findings the proprietor was held liable under Section 122(3)(a) and Section 125. The appellate authority observed that the proprietor's retraction was recanted and that the evidence supported his involvement and knowledge of the unrecorded goods, justifying imposition of the penalties confirmed by the adjudicating authority. [Paras 15, 17]Penalty under Section 122(3)(a) and Section 125 imposed on the proprietor upheld.Validity of search and panchnama proceedings - Whether the procedural objections to the panchnama and search (including alleged non-compliance with provisions analogous to Section 100 CrPC and non-reliance on seized documents) vitiate the proceedings. - HELD THAT: - The appellate authority examined the recorded statements, the panchnama signed by the proprietor, and the course of proceedings and concluded that the panchnama and statements were lawful. The authority observed that the proprietor had accepted the contents of the panchnama and later reaffirmed his statements, and therefore the procedural pleas regarding offering of personal search by panchas or officers and non-reliance on certain seized documents were not accepted as sufficient to nullify the proceedings. The appellate authority treated these contentions as afterthoughts and found no infirmity in the drawal of panchnama or recording of statements. [Paras 13]Procedural objections to the panchnama and search were rejected and panchnama proceedings held valid.Final Conclusion: The appeals are dismissed. The appellate authority upheld the confiscation of goods found at the unregistered godown and the option of redemption fine, rejected the appellants' claim of a mere technical lapse in declaring an additional place of business, sustained penalties on the firm under Sections 122(1)(xvi), 122(1)(xviii) and 125, and sustained penalties on the proprietor under Sections 122(3)(a) and 125; procedural challenges to the panchnama and search were also rejected.

Refund of unutilised input tax credit on account of inverted tax structure - definition of "inputs" excluding services and capital goods under Section 2(59) - eligibility of licence fee for input tax credit under inverted duty refund provisions - Rule 89(5) formula for refund in case of inverted duty structure - principle of opportunity to be heard / natural justice in adjudication of refund claimsRefund of unutilised input tax credit on account of inverted tax structure - definition of "inputs" excluding services and capital goods under Section 2(59) - eligibility of licence fee for input tax credit under inverted duty refund provisions - Rule 89(5) formula for refund in case of inverted duty structure - Whether the refund claim of unutilised input tax credit on licence fee paid to Indian Oil Corporation qualifies for refund under Section 54(3)(ii) of the CGST Act read with Rule 89(5) as accumulated on account of inverted tax structure for March-2018. - HELD THAT: - The Court examined Section 54(3)(ii), which permits refund where credit has accumulated because the rate of tax on inputs is higher than the rate on output supplies, and Rule 89(5) which prescribes the formula for refund in cases of inverted duty structure. Section 2(59) defines "inputs" as goods other than capital goods used or intended to be used by a supplier in the course or furtherance of business, thereby excluding services. The licence fee paid by the appellant to Indian Oil Corporation is not a "good" and does not fall within the statutory definition of "inputs", nor is it an input for the outward supplies of lubricants, distilled water or PUC. Consequently, the accumulated credit claimed on account of the licence fee cannot be treated as unutilised ITC arising from an inverted duty structure. Having applied these legal provisions and Rule 89(5), the authority correctly held that the refund claim does not fall within Section 54(3)(ii) and is not permissible. [Paras 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]The refund claim in respect of ITC on licence fee does not qualify as refund on account of inverted duty structure and is not allowable; the appeal is rejected.Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed. The adjudicating authority's rejection of the refund claim for March-2018 is affirmed on the ground that licence fee does not constitute "inputs" for purposes of refund under Section 54(3)(ii) of the CGST Act read with Rule 89(5).

Confiscation and fine in lieu of confiscation under Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017 - intent to evade tax inferred from excess quantity in transit - validity of measurement and service of worksheet as compliance with audi alteram partemIntent to evade tax inferred from excess quantity in transit - confiscation and fine in lieu of confiscation under Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Excess quantity of goods found in the vehicle justified invocation of Section 130 and consequent imposition of tax, penalty and fines in lieu of confiscation. - HELD THAT: - The appellate authority accepted the physical verification showing 7,787 Sq. Ft. against invoiced 3,840 Sq. Ft., a difference of 3,947 Sq. Ft., and held that lesser quantity shown in the invoice was with intent to evade GST. The authority applied the scheme of Section 130 which authorises confiscation of goods or conveyance and provides option to impose fine in lieu of confiscation; further subsection (3) makes the owner also liable for tax, penalty and charges. On the factual finding of undisclosed excess material loaded in transit, the authority concluded that proceedings under Section 130 were rightly invoked and the demand and fines confirmed. [Paras 6, 9]The excess quantity was held to be intentionally undeclared to evade tax and Section 130 was rightly invoked; the demand, penalty and fines were confirmed.Validity of measurement and service of worksheet as compliance with audi alteram partem - Measurement of goods and service of the calculation worksheet were proper and the person in charge did not object when the measurement and worksheet were finalized. - HELD THAT: - The authority found that measurement was taken in the presence of the driver/person-in-charge, recorded on a worksheet and finalized in his presence. The calculation sheet/worksheet was served on the person in charge and no objection was recorded. On these factual findings the contention that measurement was wrong or that the assessee was not supplied with calculation was rejected as unfounded. [Paras 8]Measurement and service of the worksheet were held to be proper; the objection that calculations were not served or measurements were unjustified was rejected.Confiscation and fine in lieu of confiscation under Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Imposition of fines in lieu of confiscation of both goods and conveyance was held to be permissible under the provisions of Section 130 read as a whole. - HELD THAT: - The authority referred to the statutory scheme in Section 130 which authorises confiscation and allows the adjudicating officer to give an option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation, subject to the provisos. It further noted that where fine in lieu is imposed, the owner remains liable for tax, penalty and charges under subsection (3). The appellant's contention that only one fine (either on goods or conveyance) can be imposed was rejected on the basis that the section contemplates confiscation (and fine in lieu) of goods and/or conveyance and additional liabilities as specified. [Paras 8]The imposition of fines in lieu of confiscation of goods and of the conveyance, together with tax and penalty liabilities, was upheld as allowable under Section 130.Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed; the appellate authority upheld the adjudicating authority's findings that undisclosed excess quantity in transit evidenced intent to evade GST, that measurements and worksheet service were proper, and that confiscation/fine and related tax and penalty liabilities under Section 130 were correctly imposed.

Condonation of delay in filing appeal under Section 107 - Exclusion of limitation period by Supreme Court orders (15.03.2020 to 02.10.2021) - Assessment of non-filers of returns under Section 62 - Requirement of assessment order in Form GST ASMT-13 and summary in Form DRC-07 - Revocation of cancellation of registration and compliance under Rule 23Condonation of delay in filing appeal under Section 107 - Exclusion of limitation period by Supreme Court orders (15.03.2020 to 02.10.2021) - Delay in filing the appeal and admissibility of the appeal despite inordinate delay. - HELD THAT: - The appeal was filed beyond the initial three-month statutory period and beyond the one-month condonable extension under Section 107(4). Having considered the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court excluding the period 15.03.2020 to 02.10.2021 from computation of limitation and the CBIC clarification applying that extension to appeals under quasi judicial GST fora, the Appellate Authority was satisfied that the period of limitation had been extended. In view of those orders and clarifications, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing on merits. [Paras 9]Delay condoned; appeal admitted and decided on merits.Assessment of non-filers of returns under Section 62 - Requirement of assessment order in Form GST ASMT-13 and summary in Form DRC-07 - Revocation of cancellation of registration and compliance under Rule 23 - Validity of tax determination in the cancellation order and consequent course of action. - HELD THAT: - The adjudicating authority cancelled the appellant's registration and, in the same order, determined tax and 'interest' by applying an average of tax payments for April-2018 to March-2019. The Appellate Authority found that no assessment order in Form GST ASMT-13 under Section 62(1), nor the summary in Form DRC-07, was passed as required; consequently the determination in the cancellation order amounted to an adhoc determination not in conformity with the statutory procedure. The appellant has since furnished returns up to the date of cancellation and asserted payment of dues. Given these deficiencies and the availability of materials which require verification, the Appellate Authority is not in a position to decide the tax liability on merits. The matter is therefore directed to the proper officer to verify payment particulars, returns status and to proceed in accordance with Section 62 and Rule 100 and Rule 23 (revocation procedure), including consideration of revocation of cancellation after due verification and recovery of any dues found payable. [Paras 16, 19]Impugned determination of tax in the cancellation order set aside; matter remitted to the proper officer to carry out assessment/verification in accordance with Section 62, Rule 100 and to consider revocation under Rule 23, and to recover any dues if found payable.Final Conclusion: The delay in filing the appeal is condoned in view of the Supreme Court orders on exclusion of limitation; the cancellation-order determination of tax without passing an assessment in Form GST ASMT-13 (and without uploading Form DRC-07) is held improper, the appeal is allowed, and the matter is remitted to the proper officer to verify returns and payments, to assess liability under Section 62/Rule 100 and to consider revocation of registration under Rule 23, with directions to recover any dues found payable.

Confiscation of goods under Section 130 of the CGST Act read with Rule 139 of the CGST Rules - penalty under Section 122(1)(xvi) and (xviii) and Section 125 of the CGST Act - penalty under Section 122(3) of the CGST Act on director - maintenance of records and returns under Rule 56 and Rule 61 of the CGST Rules - admissibility and effect of statements recorded under Section 14 of Central Excise Act read with Sections 70 & 174 of the CGST Act - validity and procedural regularity of panchnama/searchConfiscation of goods under Section 130 of the CGST Act read with Rule 139 of the CGST Rules - maintenance of records and returns under Rule 56 and Rule 61 of the CGST Rules - Whether the stock of perfume/compound found unaccounted during search was liable to confiscation and whether the appellants failed to maintain required records and returns. - HELD THAT: - The adjudicator examined the panchnama, physical verification and the statement of the director recorded during investigation. The director admitted that the perfume/compound at his residence pertained to the company and that blending was carried out at the residence; he was unable to produce purchase documents for the seized goods and agreed to pay applicable tax. The authority referred to statutory obligations to maintain daily records (Section 35 of the CGST Act; Rule 56) and to file monthly returns (Rule 61), and found that the appellants did not maintain stock details or file appropriate returns for the goods in question. On these findings the adjudicating authority concluded that the goods were procured/stored without valid documents and intended for clandestine manufacture/clearance without payment of tax, making them liable to confiscation under Section 130 read with Rule 139. The appeals contesting confiscation and asserting explanations/submissions after detention were considered but rejected as afterthoughts because the director had not placed such particulars contemporaneously or during proceedings and had failed to produce plausible documents to account for the seized stock. [Paras 6, 7, 9, 13]Confiscation order upheld; goods found excess/unaccounted were liable to confiscation and the appellants had failed to maintain required records and returns.Penalty under Section 122(1)(xvi) and (xviii) and Section 125 of the CGST Act - mens rea and imposition of penalty - Whether penalty under Section 122(1)(xvi) & (xviii) and Section 125 could be imposed on the company for contraventions relating to stock non-accountal and alleged intent to evade tax. - HELD THAT: - The adjudicating authority considered the statutory text and the material on record including the director's statement and the absence of purchase documents for the seized stock. The authority found that the company did not maintain stock details or file monthly returns for the procured goods and that the circumstances indicated procurement without valid documents and intention for clandestine clearance without payment of tax. On that factual basis the authority concluded that the conditions for imposition of penalties under the cited provisions were satisfied and imposed penalty on the company. The appellants' contentions about absence of mens rea, reliance on later submissions and case-law were examined and rejected on the ground that the recorded admissions and documentary deficiency supported penal action in the instant facts. [Paras 6, 7, 9, 13]Penalties under Section 122(1)(xvi) & (xviii) and Section 125 were sustained against the company.Penalty under Section 122(3) of the CGST Act on director - acquisition/possession and dealing with goods liable to confiscation - Whether penalty under Section 122(3) and Section 125 could be imposed on the director for his involvement in possession/dealing with goods liable to confiscation. - HELD THAT: - The adjudicator relied on the director's role in day-to-day affairs, the recorded statement admitting possession of the perfume/compound and the finding that he had acquired/kept/ dealt with goods that were unaccounted and liable to confiscation. The authority concluded that the director had abetted and assisted clandestine manufacture and removal by acquiring possession and dealing with the goods which he knew or had reasons to believe were liable to confiscation, thereby attracting Section 122(3) and Section 125. The appellants' submission that the SCN did not specify which sub-clause of Section 122(3) was invoked was considered but the adjudicator found the director's conduct and admissions sufficient to sustain penalty. [Paras 7, 13]Penalty under Section 122(3) and Section 125 sustained against the director.Validity and procedural regularity of panchnama/search - admissibility and effect of statements recorded under Section 14 of Central Excise Act read with Sections 70 & 174 of the CGST Act - Whether procedural objections to the panchnama/search and allegations of coercion, non-compliance with CrPC formalities, or subsequent submissions/retraction vitiate the proceedings or findings. - HELD THAT: - The appellants raised multiple procedural objections regarding conduct of panchnama, offering of personal search by panch witnesses, non-reliance/return of seized documents, coercion and retraction of statement, and late submissions of stock particulars. The adjudicator reviewed the panchnama, presence and signatures of independent witnesses, contemporaneous physical verification and the director's recorded admissions. The authority held that panchnama was drawn in presence of independent panchas and witnesses and found no procedural defect that would vitiate the proceedings. Contentions of maintaining accounts in Tally and later retraction or submissions were treated as afterthoughts because they were not put forward contemporaneously or supported by documentary proof at appropriate stages; accordingly the procedural objections were rejected. [Paras 6, 7, 8]Procedural objections to panchnama/search and claims of coercion/retraction were rejected and did not vitiate the confiscation and penalty findings.Final Conclusion: The appellate authority dismissed the appeals in entirety, upholding the confiscation of the unaccounted perfume/compound and the penalties imposed on the company and its director; the procedural and evidentiary objections raised by the appellants were rejected.

Refund claim rejected without issuance of FORM GST RFD-03 or FORM GST RFD-08 - opportunity of hearing / principle of natural justice in refund proceedings - communication of deficiencies in FORM GST RFD-03 under Rule 90(3) - requirement of notice in FORM GST RFD-08 and reply in FORM GST RFD-09 before rejection - set aside and remand for fresh adjudication of refund claimsRefund claim rejected without issuance of FORM GST RFD-03 or FORM GST RFD-08 - opportunity of hearing / principle of natural justice in refund proceedings - Legality of rejection of refund claims where no deficiency memo in FORM GST RFD-03 or show cause notice in FORM GST RFD-08 was issued and no opportunity of hearing was granted. - HELD THAT: - The adjudicating authority rejected the appellant's refund claims on the sole ground that supporting documents were not filed physically despite receipt of the claims on the portal. Rule 90(3) requires communication of deficiencies in FORM GST RFD-03 and the first proviso to Rule 92(3) contemplates issuance of a notice in FORM GST RFD-08 with opportunity to reply in FORM GST RFD-09 before rejection. The adjudicating authority did not issue the deficiency memo or the show cause notice, nor did it afford a personal hearing or pass a speaking order detailing reasons. Non-issuance of the prescribed communications and denial of an opportunity to be heard amounted to denial of natural justice. Consequently, the rejection orders were unsustainable and were set aside. [Paras 7, 8, 9]Rejection orders set aside for failure to issue FORM GST RFD-03 / FORM GST RFD-08 and for denial of opportunity of hearing; orders unsustainable for want of compliance with procedural requirements and principles of natural justice.Set aside and remand for fresh adjudication of refund claims - processing of refund claims as per prescribed procedure under the CGST Act and Rules - Relief to be granted following setting aside of the rejection orders. - HELD THAT: - Having set aside the impugned orders, the Commissioner (Appeals) directed that the appellant submit all relevant documents to the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority is required to process the refund claims afresh in accordance with the statutory provisions and the procedural requirements under the CGST Act, 2017 and the CGST Rules, including issuance of deficiency memos, notices and opportunity of hearing as mandated, and then pass speaking orders as appropriate. [Paras 9, 10]Appeals disposed by setting aside the rejection orders and remitting the matters to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration and fresh adjudication in accordance with law and procedure.Final Conclusion: Both refund rejection orders dated 07.11.2019 are set aside for procedural infirmity and denial of natural justice; the appellant is directed to submit requisite documents and the adjudicating authority shall reprocess the refund claims afresh in accordance with the CGST Act and Rules.

Compliance with e-way bill and accompanying documents - Obligation of person-in-charge to carry invoice and e-way bill (Rule 138A) - Furnishing of information prior to movement of goods (Rule 138) - Detention, seizure and release of goods and conveyance under Section 129 - Subsequent sale in transit doctrineCompliance with e-way bill and accompanying documents - Obligation of person-in-charge to carry invoice and e-way bill (Rule 138A) - The goods in movement were not accompanied by valid documents (invoice/e-way bill) in favour of the appellant at the time of interception. - HELD THAT: - The adjudicatory findings record that the goods were covered by an invoice and e-way bill generated by the original consignor in favour of a different consignee and that no e-way bill in favour of the appellant existed with the driver at the time of interception. Rule 138 and Rule 138A were applied to note the statutory obligation to furnish information before movement and for the person-in-charge to carry the invoice/e-way bill. The formation of a subsequently generated e-way bill after interception, and the absence of a document in the conveyance at the time officers intercepted it, demonstrate non-compliance with the requirement that valid documents accompany the consignment during transit. The timing of generation of the second e-way bill (after interception) supports the conclusion that valid documents were not available when the vehicle was intercepted. [Paras 7, 8, 10, 12]Findings upheld that the goods were not accompanied by valid documents at interception and statutory requirements under Rules 138/138A were violated.Subsequent sale in transit doctrine - The claimed subsequent 'sale in transit' was not established and could not be invoked to justify the absence of prior documentation in favour of the appellant. - HELD THAT: - The appellate authority examined the appellant's contention of a subsequent sale in transit and found no antecedent agreement or contemporaneously executed invoice/e-way bill in favour of the appellant prior to interception. The law requires that for a valid transit sale parties should have entered into the agreement and necessary documents (invoice/e-way bill) should exist before or at the time of movement. Generation of documents after interception was treated as an afterthought; therefore the conditions for recognising a lawful subsequent sale in transit were not satisfied in the facts of this case. [Paras 7, 11]The plea of subsequent sale in transit is rejected as not proved and cannot excuse non-possession of valid documents at the time of interception.Detention, seizure and release of goods and conveyance under Section 129 - Confirmation of tax and penalty and detention/release orders under Section 129 were upheld. - HELD THAT: - Given the absence of valid documents at the time of interception and rejection of the subsequent transit-sale defence, the appellate authority found no infirmity in the original order which had detained the goods and imposed tax and penalty under the statutory provisions governing detention and seizure. The release of goods on furnishing of bank guarantee and bond was recorded; however, the confirmed demand and penalty were sustained as lawful in view of the statutory breach. [Paras 2, 3, 12]The impugned Order-in-Original confirming tax and penalty under Section 129 is upheld and the appeal is rejected.Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed; the appellate authority finds that the consignment was not accompanied by valid invoice/e-way bill in favour of the appellant at the time of interception, the asserted subsequent sale in transit was not established, and the detention, tax and penalty confirmed under the statutory provisions are sustained.