Refund of unutilized input tax credit on account of exports without payment of tax - Refund under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Requirement of online filing of refund claims on the common portal - Condition (b) of CBIC Circular No.110/29/2019-GST regarding re application after filing a NIL refund - Prohibition on re application where a refund claim under the same category has been filed for a subsequent period - Validity of manually filed revised refund claim where online refund claims have been previously filedRefund of unutilized input tax credit on account of exports without payment of tax - Requirement of online filing of refund claims on the common portal - Condition (b) of CBIC Circular No.110/29/2019-GST regarding re application after filing a NIL refund - Validity of manually filed revised refund claim where online refund claims have been previously filed - Whether the appellant was entitled to the revised/manual refund claim for unutilized ITC for October to December 2017 despite having earlier filed online refund claims (one NIL and one for December 2017) and without complying with the online filing requirement and condition (b) of Circular No.110/29/2019 GST. - HELD THAT: - The adjudicatory findings record that the appellant had earlier filed online refund claims for the same period (ARN No.AA0811176066919 for October 2017 to November 2017 showing NIL and ARN No.AA081217780023B for December 2017) and thereafter submitted a manually prepared revised refund application. The CBIC Circular No.110/29/2019 GST (dated 03.10.2019) sets out that a registered person who has filed a NIL refund claim may re apply for refund for that period only if two conditions are satisfied, including that no refund claims under the same category have been filed for any subsequent period (condition (b)). The procedural instructions in earlier circulars required refund claims to be filed online on the common portal. The appellant did not file the revised claim online and failed to satisfy condition (b) because refund claims under the same category had been filed for subsequent period(s). Consequently, the appellant was not eligible to re apply under the terms of the circulars and the manually filed revised claim could not be admitted. [Paras 8, 9]Appeal dismissed; revised/manual refund claim rejected for non compliance with online filing requirements and condition (b) of Circular No.110/29/2019 GST.Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed and the impugned order rejecting the refund claim is upheld on the ground that the appellant had earlier filed online refund claims for the period and failed to satisfy the re application condition in the CBIC circular, in addition to not complying with the mandatory online filing procedure.

Refund under Section 54 of the CGST Act - person who has paid the tax is entitled to refund - requirement of payment to Government for claiming refund - Rule 89 refund application procedure - evidence that the incidence of tax had not been passed onRefund under Section 54 of the CGST Act - person who has paid the tax is entitled to refund - requirement of payment to Government for claiming refund - Rule 89 refund application procedure - evidence that the incidence of tax had not been passed on - Appellant's entitlement to refund claimed for alleged excess GST paid on canteen services - HELD THAT: - The statutory scheme of Section 54(1) of the CGST Act and Rule 89(1) requires that refund applications be made by a person who has paid the tax to the Government (the words "paid by him" in Section 54(1)). Section 54(4) further contemplates documentary evidence to establish that a refund is due and that the tax was paid by the applicant and its incidence had not been passed on. Where the statute expressly provides alternative filing provisions (for example, in the case of certain deemed exports under Rule 89), it does so; no such option is provided for ordinary supplies. In the present case the tax for the period November-2017 to July-2018 was deposited into Government accounts by the service providers and not by the appellant. On that factual and legal basis the appellant did not qualify as a person who had paid the tax and therefore was not entitled to file a refund claim under Section 54 read with Rule 89. The appellant's contentions regarding vagueness of the show cause notice and reliance on cited authorities were considered but do not alter the statutory requirement that only the person who has paid tax to the Government may claim the refund.Refund claim rejected because the appellant did not pay the tax to the Government and therefore was not entitled to claim refund under Section 54 read with Rule 89.Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed; the impugned order rejecting the refund claim is upheld on the ground that the appellant was not the person who paid the tax to the Government and therefore was not eligible to claim refund under Section 54 of the CGST Act read with Rule 89.

Summary order. Appeal allowed to be withdrawn at the request of the appellant and accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

Treatment of stores and spares as inputs versus capital goods - availability of refund of unutilized input tax credit on account of inverted duty structure - Net ITC under the formula for refund in Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - definition of inputs and capital goods under Sections 2(59) and 2(19) of the CGST Act, 2017 - relevance of capitalization in books of account for classification as capital goods - role of Board Circulars (Circular No. 79/53/2018-GST and Circular No.125/44/2019-GST) in interpreting inputsDefinition of inputs and capital goods under Sections 2(59) and 2(19) of the CGST Act, 2017 - treatment of stores and spares as inputs versus capital goods - relevance of capitalization in books of account for classification as capital goods - interpretation in light of Board Circular No. 79/53/2018-GST and Circular No.125/44/2019-GST - Whether the goods on which input tax credit has accumulated are to be treated as inputs or as capital goods for the purpose of refund under the inverted duty structure provisions - HELD THAT: - The statutory definitions provide that "inputs" are goods other than capital goods used or intended to be used in the course of business, while "capital goods" are goods the value of which is capitalized in the books of account. The Board's clarifications expressly state that stores and spares charged to revenue cannot be treated as capital goods and that ITC on such supplies is includible in Net ITC, subject to Section 17(5) restrictions. Given the appellant's line of business (mining) and the frequent replacement of tools/parts/spares, such items-if not capitalized and charged to revenue-fall within the statutory meaning of inputs. The appellant also filed a declaration that the claim does not include amounts that have been capitalized. On these foundations the appellate authority held that the items in controversy are to be treated as inputs, though their status is to be verified against the books and invoices. [Paras 10, 11, 13, 14, 15]Goods which are not capitalized in the books of account and whose expenditure is charged to revenue (such as stores, spares and frequently replaced parts) are to be treated as inputs for the purposes of refund under the inverted duty structure, having regard to Sections 2(59) and 2(19) and the Board Circulars.Net ITC under the formula for refund in Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - verification of invoices and books of account for refund processing - remand for adjudicatory verification and processing of refund - Whether the adjudicating authority's rejection of the refund claim should be set aside and the matter referred back for verification and processing of the refund claim - HELD THAT: - Although the appellate authority found merit in the appellant's contention that the challenged items fall within the definition of inputs, the correctness of the refund claim depends on documentary verification. The formula for refund in Rule 89(5) requires computation using Net ITC, which in turn depends on proper classification of supplies and verification against books of account and invoices. In view of the appellant's revised computation (removing input services) and the declarations filed, the impugned order rejecting the refund was set aside and the matter directed back to the adjudicating authority to verify the submitted input invoices and related records and to process the refund as per the CGST Act and Rules. [Paras 5, 8, 15, 16]Impugned rejection is set aside and the matter is remitted to the adjudicating authority to verify the invoices and books of account and to process the refund claim in accordance with the CGST Act and Rules.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed: the finding that the contested items qualify as inputs (and not capital goods) is accepted subject to verification, the impugned order rejecting the refund is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the adjudicating authority for documentary verification of input invoices and books of account and for processing the refund claim in accordance with the statutory formula and applicable circulars.

Withdrawal of appeal - dismissal as withdrawn - revocation of cancellation of registration - cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns - activation of GST registrationWithdrawal of appeal - dismissal as withdrawn - Whether the appeal filed against cancellation of GST registration may be withdrawn and the appeal dismissed as withdrawn. - HELD THAT: - The appellant, having been aggrieved by the order cancelling its GST registration and rejecting the application for revocation, sought restoration of registration and filed the present appeal. Subsequently the appellant's authorised representative communicated that they had applied for revocation in the system and requested withdrawal of the appeal. The appellate authority considered the request and, in view of the appellant's explicit prayer to withdraw the appeal, permitted withdrawal. No substantive adjudication on the merits of the cancellation or revocation was undertaken in this order.The appellant's request to withdraw the appeal was allowed and the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.Final Conclusion: The appeal against the order cancelling GST registration was allowed to be withdrawn at the instance of the appellant and is dismissed as withdrawn; no adjudication on the merits of the cancellation or revocation is recorded in this order.

Summary order. Appeal permitted to be withdrawn; appeal dismissed as withdrawn.

Refund of accumulated input tax credit on export of goods and services without payment of IGST - principle of natural justice - non-speaking order - requirement to issue notice in FORM GST RFD-08 and afford opportunity of hearing under Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - reconsideration and passing of a speaking orderRequirement to issue notice in FORM GST RFD-08 and afford opportunity of hearing under Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - non-speaking order - principle of natural justice - reconsideration and passing of a speaking order - Rejection of part of the refund claim without issuing FORM GST RFD-08, without affording hearing and by passing a non-speaking order was procedurally improper and requires reconsideration. - HELD THAT: - The adjudicating authority rejected part of the refund claim without issuing the show cause notice in FORM GST RFD-08 and without granting an opportunity of hearing, and the order did not state reasons. Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 mandates that where the proper officer is satisfied that whole or any part of a refund is not admissible, a notice in FORM GST RFD-08 must be issued requiring a reply in FORM GST RFD-09 and, after considering the reply, an order in FORM GST RFD-06 be made; the proviso expressly provides that no refund application shall be rejected without giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard. The absence of a speaking order and of the statutorily required notice/hearing amounts to violation of the principle of natural justice. Consequently the rejection cannot stand without reconsideration and the adjudicating authority is directed to re-examine the claim and pass a proper speaking order after affording the required opportunity. [Paras 5, 6, 7, 8]The matter is remitted to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration and for passing a speaking order after issuing FORM GST RFD-08 and affording opportunity of hearing, in accordance with Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017.Final Conclusion: The appeal is disposed of by setting aside the impugned non-speaking rejection insofar as it violated Rule 92(3) and the principles of natural justice; the adjudicating authority is directed to re-consider the rejected portion of the refund claim and pass a reasoned order after issuing the prescribed notice and affording an opportunity of hearing.

Refund of tax paid in respect of services not provided - application of Section 142(5) of the CGST Act to pre-GST service tax payments - limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act and relevant date for cause of action - adjustment/credit under erstwhile Rule 6(3) of Service Tax Rules - doctrine of unjust enrichment - final assessment versus provisional assessment not barring refundRefund of tax paid in respect of services not provided - application of Section 142(5) of the CGST Act to pre-GST service tax payments - adjustment/credit under erstwhile Rule 6(3) of Service Tax Rules - Refund under Section 142(5) of the CGST Act is admissible for service tax paid pre-GST where the service was not provided and the tax has not been adjusted by the service provider. - HELD THAT: - The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the appellant had paid service tax to the builder which the builder had deposited with the Department and had not refunded or adjusted that amount. The booking was cancelled prior to provision of the service and the builder undertook (by indemnity/declaration and CA certificate) that it had neither refunded nor claimed adjustment/credit for the service tax in question. The CBIC FAQ (referred to in the order) recognises that claims for non-provision of service paid on or before 30.06.2017 may be disposed of under Section 142(5) and that where adjustment/credit would have been available under erstwhile Rule 6(3) such refunds merit to be honoured under Section 142(5). Applying these principles, the Tribunal concluded that once it is established that no service was provided and no adjustment was availed by the provider, refund under Section 142(5) becomes admissible and the tax paid operates as a deposit refundable in cash. [Paras 10, 11, 12, 13]Refund under Section 142(5) is admissible to the appellant because no service was provided and the builder has neither refunded nor adjusted the service tax; therefore the claim succeeds.Limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act and relevant date for cause of action - relevant date for computation of the one year period - Section 11B limitation does not bar the refund claim where the refund arises from non provision of service; alternatively, if limitation were to apply, the relevant date is the date of cancellation (event giving rise to refund) and not the date of original payment. - HELD THAT: - The Adjudicating Authority had rejected the claim as time barred under Section 11B, reasoning from the date of agreement/payment. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that Section 142(5) frees such claims from the fetters of limitation contained in sub section (1) of Section 11B except insofar as sub section (2) (unjust enrichment) applies. Further, even if Section 11B were applicable, established authorities permit shifting the relevant date to the event giving rise to the refund (e.g., date of cancellation or reversal) rather than the original payment date. Applying that principle, the cancellation by the buyer is the event generating the cause of action for refund and is the relevant date for the one year computation. [Paras 3, 9, 12, 13, 14]The refund claim is not barred by Section 11B; alternatively, the relevant date for limitation is the date of cancellation, not the date of payment.Doctrine of unjust enrichment - The doctrine of unjust enrichment does not defeat the appellant's refund claim where the appellant bore the incidence of the tax, the builder deposited the tax with the Department and has not refunded or adjusted it. - HELD THAT: - The Adjudicating Authority relied on precedent to apply unjust enrichment against the refund claim. The Commissioner (Appeals) distinguished that approach on the facts: the appellant as customer had borne the service tax component; evidence on record, including the builder's declaration and CA certificate, established that the builder had collected and deposited the tax and had not refunded or claimed adjustment. Thus the elements necessary to sustain an unjust enrichment defence - namely that the recipient retained a benefit or that no third party borne incidence exists - are absent. Consequently the unjust enrichment doctrine does not apply to bar refund. [Paras 9, 13, 15]Doctrine of unjust enrichment is not attracted and cannot be invoked to deny the refund to the appellant.Final assessment versus provisional assessment not barring refund - A refund claim is not precluded merely because the tax deposited by the service provider was against a final (non provisional) assessment. - HELD THAT: - The Adjudicating Authority's conclusion that refund was not maintainable because the builder's deposit related to a final assessment was rejected. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that neither law nor precedent requires that refunds be confined to provisional assessments; the essential question is whether tax was paid and whether the conditions for refund (non provision of service, no adjustment/refund by provider, compliance with unjust enrichment requirement) are met. On that basis, the final nature of the assessment does not negate the appellant's entitlement. [Paras 9, 10]Finality of the provider's assessment does not, by itself, bar the appellant's refund claim.Final Conclusion: The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, set aside the Adjudicating Authority's order and directed refund of the service tax to the appellant with consequential reliefs, holding that the appellant is entitled to refund under Section 142(5) CGST as no service was provided, limitation under Section 11B is not a bar (or the relevant date is the cancellation), and unjust enrichment does not apply.

Refund of IGST on export of services - Requirement of Bank Realisation Certificate/Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate under rule 89(2)(c) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Realisation of consideration in convertible foreign exchange as condition for export of services - Documents prescribed for processing refund claims - Circular No.37/11/2018-GST dated 15.03.2018 - Substantial compliance vs. prescribed documentary requirementsRefund of IGST on export of services - Requirement of Bank Realisation Certificate/Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate under rule 89(2)(c) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Documents prescribed for processing refund claims - Circular No.37/11/2018-GST dated 15.03.2018 - Whether the appellant's refund claim for IGST paid on export of services could be rejected for non-submission of BRC/FIRC as required by rule 89(2)(c) of the CGST Rules, 2017. - HELD THAT: - The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that rule 89(2)(c) requires submission of a statement containing invoice details and the relevant BRC or FIRC in refund claims for export of services. The Board's Circular No.37/11/2018-GST was considered to reiterate that BRC/FIRC is a document required for processing refund claims relating to export of services and that officers should not call for documents beyond those listed. The adjudicating authority had rejected the claim for want of BRC/FIRC and the appellate forum found no infirmity in applying the statutory and administrative requirement to require BRC/FIRC as part of the claim documentation. The contention that RBI instructions discontinuing FIRC or that substantial compliance sufficed was not accepted as displacing the prescribed documentary requirement for processing refund claims under rule 89(2)(c). [Paras 6, 7]The rejection of the refund claim for non-submission of the required BRC/FIRC was upheld.Substantial compliance vs. prescribed documentary requirements - Validity of bank's Foreign Inward Remittance Statement as FIRC - Whether the Foreign Inward Remittance Statement submitted by the appellant, lacking invoice number and date, could be treated as a valid FIRC for linking the inward remittance to the export invoice. - HELD THAT: - The appellant submitted a Foreign Inward Remittance Statement from the bank together with an export invoice. The Commissioner (Appeals) examined the statement and observed that it did not mention the invoice number and date, thus preventing correlation between the remittance and the specific export invoice. In the absence of such linkage, the statement could not be treated as the FIRC required under rule 89(2)(c). The appellate authority therefore rejected the appellant's plea that the bank statement constituted substantial compliance with the documentary requirement. [Paras 8]The bank's Foreign Inward Remittance Statement, lacking invoice particulars, was held not to be a valid FIRC and could not satisfy the requirement; the appeal was dismissed.Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed; the adjudicating authority's rejection of the refund claim for August 2018 is upheld on the ground that the requisite BRC/FIRC, containing invoice particulars as required by rule 89(2)(c) of the CGST Rules, 2017, was not furnished and the submitted bank statement without invoice linkage could not be treated as a valid FIRC.

Revocation of cancellation of registration - non-filing of returns - requirement to furnish returns before filing revocation - rejection of revocation application for non-submission of reply - principles of natural justice - Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Circular No.99/18/2019-GST dated 23.04.2019Revocation of cancellation of registration - requirement to furnish returns before filing revocation - Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Circular No.99/18/2019-GST dated 23.04.2019 - Applicability of the procedural requirement that returns must be furnished before filing an application for revocation of cancellation of registration and the legitimacy of rejecting such application for failure to comply with the procedure. - HELD THAT: - The adjudicating provisions in rule 23(1) require that where registration is cancelled for failure to furnish returns, an application for revocation cannot be filed unless the due returns are furnished and amounts payable in terms of such returns are paid. The Board's clarification in Circular No.99/18/2019-GST reiterates that all returns due up to the date of cancellation must be furnished before the revocation application can be entertained and that returns for the period from cancellation until revocation must be furnished within thirty days of revocation. In the present case the cancellation was on account of non-filing of returns and the revocation application was rejected for non-submission of reply; the Appellate Authority accordingly held that the appellant is required to follow the procedure prescribed under rule 23 and the Board's circular and approach the adjudicating authority for action in accordance with those provisions. [Paras 6, 7, 8, 9]The appeal is disposed by upholding the applicability of rule 23 and Circular No.99/18/2019-GST; the appellant must comply with the procedural requirement of furnishing due returns and follow the prescribed process for revocation.Rejection of revocation application for non-submission of reply - principles of natural justice - Whether the appellant's contention that rejection solely for non-filing of reply on the portal offended principles of natural justice was accepted and whether the factual claim of filing pending returns was adjudicated. - HELD THAT: - The appellant alleged financial hardship and lack of familiarity with the online filing process and contended that rejection on the ground of non-filing of reply on the portal violated natural justice. The Appellate Authority noted these submissions but did not adjudicate the factual contention that all pending returns had been filed. Instead, having examined the rule and the Board's circular, the Authority directed the appellant to follow the statutory procedure and approach the adjudicating authority for further action, leaving the factual verification and any consideration of natural justice to the adjudicating authority in accordance with rule 23 and the circular. [Paras 6, 9, 10]The contention that rejection offended natural justice was not finally decided; the matter is left to the adjudicating authority to verify compliance with rule 23 and to take further action.Final Conclusion: The appeal is disposed by directing compliance with Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017 and Circular No.99/18/2019-GST; the appellant must furnish returns and follow the prescribed procedure and approach the adjudicating authority for further action, with the adjudicating authority to verify compliance and decide the revocation request. The appellate order does not finally adjudicate the appellant's factual claim that all pending returns were already filed.

Revocation of cancellation of registration - failure to furnish returns - requirement to furnish returns and pay tax, interest and penalty before revocation - Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Circular No.99/18/2019-GSTRevocation of cancellation of registration - Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - requirement to furnish returns and pay tax, interest and penalty before revocation - Circular No.99/18/2019-GST - Entitlement to revocation of cancellation of GST registration where cancellation arose from non-filing of returns and the procedure to be followed for seeking revocation. - HELD THAT: - The adjudicating authority cancelled the appellant's registration on account of non-filing of returns for a continuous period of six months and absence of a reply within the specified period. Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017 prescribes the procedure for revocation of cancellation of registration, including the first proviso which bars filing of an application for revocation where cancellation resulted from failure to furnish returns unless such returns are furnished and any tax, interest, penalty and late fee due in terms of such returns are paid. Circular No.99/18/2019-GST clarifies that where registration is cancelled for failure to furnish returns, all returns due till the date of cancellation must be furnished before filing for revocation and that returns for the period from the date of cancellation until revocation must be furnished within thirty days of revocation. Applying these provisions, the appellant cannot obtain revocation without complying with the statutory conditions and procedure under Rule 23 and the clarificatory circular; the proper course is to approach the adjudicating authority after completing the prescribed compliance so that the authority may consider revocation under the procedure laid down. [Paras 6, 7, 8, 9]The appellant must follow the procedure in Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017, as explained in Circular No.99/18/2019-GST, and approach the adjudicating authority for further action; the appeal is disposed accordingly.Final Conclusion: The appeal is disposed by directing the appellant to comply with the conditions and procedure for revocation of cancellation of registration under Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017 and Circular No.99/18/2019-GST and to seek appropriate action from the adjudicating authority.

Detention, seizure and release of goods in transit under Section 129 - failure to deposit tax and penalty within the statutory seven-day period under Section 129(6) - confiscation of goods and conveyance under Section 130 - option to pay fine in lieu of confiscationDetention, seizure and release of goods in transit under Section 129 - failure to deposit tax and penalty within the statutory seven-day period under Section 129(6) - confiscation of goods and conveyance under Section 130 - option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation - Whether the adjudicating authority erred in not initiating proceedings under Section 130 and not confiscating the goods and conveyance or imposing fine in lieu thereof after the respondent failed to deposit the tax and penalties within seven days as required by Section 129(6). - HELD THAT: - Section 129(6) mandates that where the person transporting goods or the owner of goods fails to pay the amount of tax and penalty as provided in sub-section (1) within seven days of such detention or seizure, further proceedings shall be initiated in accordance with Section 130. Section 130 provides for confiscation of goods or conveyance and for a penalty under Section 122, and also contemplates an option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation. In the present case the respondent did not deposit the proposed tax and penalties within the seven-day period prescribed by Section 129(6). Consequently the adjudicating authority was required to take action under Section 130. The adjudicating authority, however, released the goods and conveyance on payment of tax and penalty and did not proceed to confiscate the goods or impose a fine in lieu of confiscation. That omission is contrary to the statutory mandate and amounts to legal error. For these reasons the appeal filed by the department is allowed to the extent that the impugned order failed to initiate proceedings under Section 130 and failed to confiscate the goods and conveyance or impose a fine in lieu of confiscation. [Paras 6, 7, 8]The adjudicating authority erred in not invoking Section 130 after non-deposit within seven days; the departmental appeal is allowed to that extent.Final Conclusion: Appeal allowed in part: the impugned order is set aside to the extent it failed to initiate proceedings under Section 130 and did not confiscate the goods and conveyance or impose a fine in lieu of confiscation; other aspects of the impugned order stand unaffected.

Transitional credit under Section 140(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - transitional credit under Section 140(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 - reverse charge mechanism payment and eligibility for transitional credit - disallowance and recovery under Section 73(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - interest on wrongly availed credit under Section 50(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 - penalty under Section 122(2) of the CGST Act, 2017Transitional credit under Section 140(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - reverse charge mechanism payment and eligibility for transitional credit - disallowance and recovery under Section 73(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - interest on wrongly availed credit under Section 50(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Disallowance of input tax credit of Rs. 2,32,334/- claimed in TRAN-1 in respect of Service Tax paid under RCM. - HELD THAT: - The appellant had claimed Cenvat credit in June 2017 and paid Service Tax under RCM on 6-7-2017, i.e. after the appointed day. Transitional provisions permit carrying forward Cenvat credit only insofar as it was legally admissible and reflected in returns prior to the appointed day. Since the credit was not lawfully available in the return before the appointed day and the RCM payment was made after the appointed day, the appellant was not entitled to transfer that credit in Table 5(a) of TRAN-1. The adjudicating authority therefore rightly disallowed the claimed credit and ordered recovery under the applicable provisions, with interest as provided by law. [Paras 2, 10]Disallowance of the ITC of Rs. 2,32,334/- upheld and recovery with interest affirmed.Transitional credit under Section 140(5) of the CGST Act, 2017 - transitional credit and timing of entry in books for inputs and input services - disallowance and recovery under Section 73(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - interest on wrongly availed credit under Section 50(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Disallowance of input tax credit of Rs. 61,518/- shown in Table 7(b) of TRAN-1 relating to input services. - HELD THAT: - Section 140(5) permits credit for inputs/input services received on or after the appointed day only if the relevant tax-paying document was recorded in the books within thirty days (subject to limited extension) and appropriate statement furnished. Credits which should have been transferred in Table 5(a) (i.e. those available on or before 30-6-2017) were incorrectly placed in Table 7(b), and some credits were recorded in the books after the thirty-day window. These entries were therefore not in accordance with the transitional conditions and the adjudicating authority correctly disallowed and directed recovery with interest under the statutory provisions. [Paras 3, 10]Disallowance of the ITC of Rs. 61,518/- upheld and recovery with interest directed.Penalty under Section 122(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 - absence of mens rea / no intent to evade tax - Whether penalty under Section 122(2) should be sustained in respect of the reversed credit. - HELD THAT: - Although the claimed credit was disallowed, the appellant had reversed the credit and deposited interest prior to issuance of the show cause notice and explained the incorrect claim as a procedural lapse during the initial phase of GST. The adjudicator accepted that there was no intention to evade tax and that the violation arose from inexperience with the new law. In those circumstances the penalty imposed under Section 122(2) was held to be unwarranted and was set aside. [Paras 11, 12]Penalty under Section 122(2) set aside for lack of intention to evade tax.Final Conclusion: The appellate authority upheld the disallowance and recovery (with interest) of the two credits claimed in TRAN-1 as being contrary to the transitional provisions of the CGST Act, 2017, but set aside the penalty imposed under Section 122(2) on the ground that there was no intent to evade tax; the appeal is disposed accordingly.

Validity of e-way bill - Requirement to update Part-B of FORM GST EWB-01 - Detention and seizure under Section 129 - Imposition of tax and penalty for non-production of e-way bill - Technical or venial breach versus deliberate evasion in penalty assessment - Principles of natural justice in show-cause and adjudicationValidity of e-way bill - Requirement to update Part-B of FORM GST EWB-01 - Detention and seizure under Section 129 - Whether the goods could be detained and the e-way bill treated as invalid because Part-B (conveyance details) was not updated and the vehicle at the time of interception did not correspond to the vehicle in Part-B. - HELD THAT: - The adjudicating authority found that Part-A of the e-way bill showed the shipping address as Shivaji Nagar, Madanganj, Kishangarh, whereas Part-B recorded a different vehicle number (RJ-19-GF-0560) while the goods were found loaded in vehicle RJ-14-GE-4146. Rule 138(5) requires that where goods are transferred from one conveyance to another the details of conveyance must be updated in Part-B before further movement. The proviso to Rule 138 and Notification 12/2018-C.T. require updating Part-B where the onward transport exceeds fifty kilometres. The authority concluded that the distance involved (Kishangarh from Jaipur) exceeded fifty kilometres and the Part-B was not updated with the actual vehicle number; therefore the driver did not carry a valid e-way bill at the time of interception and detention under the statutory scheme was justified. The appellant's contention that the movement from the local transporter to Jaipur was within fifty kilometres and therefore updating was unnecessary was rejected on the basis that the e-way bill itself recorded Kishangarh as the shipping address, making the distance exceed fifty kilometres and making updating mandatory. The case law and submissions relied upon by the appellant were held not squarely applicable to these facts.Detention and seizure were sustainable because Part-B was not updated with the actual conveyance and the e-way bill was therefore not valid for the movement observed.Imposition of tax and penalty for non-production of e-way bill - Technical or venial breach versus deliberate evasion in penalty assessment - Principles of natural justice in show-cause and adjudication - Whether the tax demand and penalty (including claim that breach was merely technical and penalty excessive) were wrongly confirmed and whether the proceedings violated principles of natural justice. - HELD THAT: - The adjudicating authority noted that tax (IGST) and penalty were demanded and paid by the appellant but examined merits of the objections. The authority held that failure to carry a valid e-way bill and failure to update Part-B amounted to non-compliance warranting levy of tax and penalty under the statutory provisions applicable to detention and release. The appellant's submissions that the defects were merely technical, caused by the transporter, or without deliberate intent to evade tax were considered but rejected because the statutory requirement to update conveyance details and carry a valid e-way bill was not met in the circumstances shown by the e-way bill itself. The authority recorded that personal hearing was afforded (held on 25-2-2020) and considered written submissions; accordingly the contentions of denial of natural justice or inadequate notice were not accepted. Although judicial authorities and Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST were cited by the appellant to argue for nominal penalty in technical cases, the authority found those precedents and the circular not squarely applicable on the facts and therefore upheld the demand and penalty.The demand of tax and confirmation of penalty were upheld and the appeal rejected; allegations of breach being merely technical and of violation of natural justice were not accepted.Final Conclusion: The appeal is rejected: the e-way bill was held invalid for the observed movement because Part-B was not updated with the actual vehicle for a movement exceeding fifty kilometres, authorising detention under the statute; the tax demand and penalty were accordingly sustained after considering submissions and providing personal hearing.

Refund of unutilised input tax credit on zero-rated/deemed export supplies - Entitlement of recipient or supplier to claim refund under Rule 89 - Procedure for deemed exports to EOU including prior intimation in Form A and endorsement of tax invoice - Requirement of undertaking in respect of deemed export refunds - Mandatory compliance of Circulars as procedural safeguards for refund claimsRefund of unutilised input tax credit on zero-rated/deemed export supplies - Entitlement of recipient or supplier to claim refund under Rule 89 - Whether the appellant, as recipient of deemed export supplies, was entitled to claim refund of accumulated input tax credit for November, 2017 and whether the refund claim was maintainable under Section 54 read with Rule 89 - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal noted that Section 54 permits refund of unutilised input tax credit in respect of zero rated supplies and Rule 89 (as amended) permits either the recipient or the supplier of notified deemed export supplies to file a refund application. The appellant, being a 100% EOU and the recipient of deemed export supplies, prima facie falls within the class of persons entitled to claim refund under Rule 89 and Section 54. However, entitlement is subject to compliance with procedural safeguards and conditions prescribed for deemed exports. The adjudicating authority rejected the claim on account of non compliance with the procedures in Circular No. 14/14/2017 GST (Form A intimation and endorsement/records) and related directions. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted that Rule 89 permits the recipient to file the claim but concluded that procedural requirements applicable to deemed exports must be complied with for maintainability of the refund application. The appellant's contention that no undertaking or Form A requirement applied to the recipient was rejected by reference to the Circulars prescribing the safeguards and subsequent clarificatory Circular which reiterated applicability. [Paras 5, 6, 9, 10]The refund claim for November, 2017 was not maintainable in view of non compliance with the procedural requirements for deemed exports prescribed by the relevant Circulars; the appeal is rejected on this ground.Procedure for deemed exports to EOU including prior intimation in Form A and endorsement of tax invoice - Requirement of undertaking in respect of deemed export refunds - Mandatory compliance of Circulars as procedural safeguards for refund claims - Whether non compliance with the procedural requirements in Circular No. 14/14/2017 GST (Form A/intimation and endorsement/records) and with the undertaking requirement in Circular No. 24/24/2017 GST is condonable or otherwise disentitles the appellant to refund - HELD THAT: - The appellant argued that the Form A prior intimation procedure was inapplicable to recipients or was not operative from its Development Commissioner and that the undertaking requirement was not mandated by the Rules and, in any event, was a mere procedural/technical requirement subject to condonation. The Commissioner (Appeals) examined the Circulars and found that the procedure in Circular No. 14/14/2017 GST applies to supplies to EOU units notified as deemed exports and prescribes prior intimation in Form A, endorsement of tax invoices and maintenance of digital records. Paragraph 4 of Circular No. 24/24/2017 GST requires undertakings in cases where supplier or recipient seeks refund, and later clarifications (Circular No. 125/44/2019 GST) reiterated compliance. On this basis the appellate authority held that these procedural safeguards are mandatory for deemed export refund claims and that non compliance could justify rejection of the refund application. The appellant's submissions on bonafides and subsequent procuring of supplier undertakings were noted but the adjudicator found the procedural non compliance decisive. [Paras 6, 8, 9, 10]Non compliance with the Form A/intimation, endorsement/recording requirements and the undertaking obligations as laid down in the Circulars disentitled the appellant to the refund; the contention that such non compliance was merely technical and condonable was not accepted.Final Conclusion: The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal and upheld rejection of the refund claim for November, 2017 on the ground that the appellant had not complied with the procedural safeguards and mandatory undertaking/intimation requirements prescribed for deemed export supplies by the relevant Circulars, and therefore the refund application was not maintainable.

Refund of unutilized input tax credit on zero-rated exports - rectification of returns under the self-correction provision - interaction of FORM GSTR-3B and FORM GSTR-1 for correction of outward supplies - withholding or denial of refund for failure to furnish or reconcile returnsRefund of unutilized input tax credit on zero-rated exports - Section 54(3) and Section 54(10) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Entitlement of the appellant to refund of accumulated input tax credit for exports made without payment of integrated tax for the period October to December, 2017. - HELD THAT: - The appellant exported goods under Letter of Undertaking and claimed refund of unutilized input tax credit for the stated period. The adjudicating authority rejected the claim on the basis that FORM GSTR-3B showed zero in the column for zero-rated outward supplies. The appellate authority examined the statutory provision permitting withholding or deduction of refund where returns are not furnished or tax/interest/penalty remains unpaid and observed that the refund claim was contingent upon proper compliance and reconciliation of returns. The authority accepted that exports were made without payment of integrated tax but found that the appellant did not produce records showing reconciliation between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B or any corrected/modified GSTR-1 for the relevant period, as envisaged by the procedure laid down in the circulars and Section 39(9). In absence of rectification/reconciliation documentation, the appellant failed to establish entitlement to the refund despite the underlying export transactions. [Paras 6, 7, 8]Refund claim for unutilized input tax credit for October to December, 2017 is rejected for failure to rectify the error in returns and for non-production of reconciliation/corrected GSTR-1.Rectification of returns under the self-correction provision - interaction of FORM GSTR-3B and FORM GSTR-1 for correction of outward supplies - Circular No. 7/7/2017-GST and Circular No. 26/26/2017-GST - Whether the appellant's contention that the reporting error in FORM GSTR-3B could be rectified by correct reporting in FORM GSTR-1 (as per the circulars and Section 39(9)) absolved it from requirements to produce corrected returns/reconciliation. - HELD THAT: - The appellant relied on departmental circulars permitting rectification of errors in FORM GSTR-3B by correctly reporting details in FORM GSTR-1 and on Section 39(9) which permits rectification of omissions or incorrect particulars subject to prescribed manner and payment of interest. The authority noted the circulars but required documentary proof of reconciliation or filing of corrected/modified GSTR-1 for the relevant period. The appellant did not furnish any such corrected GSTR-1 or reconciliation report demonstrating that the system had auto-adjusted the returns as per the circulars. Consequently, the appellate authority held that mere assertion of having filed GSTR-1 correctly without production of corrected returns or reconciliation reports was insufficient to invoke the rectification route and to entitle the appellant to refund. [Paras 6, 7, 8]The claimed rectification under Section 39(9) and the cited circulars is not accepted in absence of corrected GSTR-1 filing or reconciliation documents; therefore the rectification contention does not rescue the refund claim.Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed: the refund claim for unutilized input tax credit for October to December, 2017 is rejected because the appellant failed to rectify the misclassification in FORM GSTR-3B by producing corrected/modified GSTR-1 or reconciliation evidence as required by the applicable provisions and departmental circulars.

Refund of tax paid on zero rated supplies to SEZ unit/SEZ developer - reconciliation and rectification of errors in GSTR 3B/GSTR 1 - inadmissibility of IGST refund where underlying transaction pertains to pre GST periodRefund of tax paid on zero rated supplies to SEZ unit/SEZ developer - Whether the refund claim filed for February-2018 could be allowed when the underlying supplies to SEZ unit/developer were made in July 2017 and August 2017 and the refund application showed February 2018 as the period. - HELD THAT: - The adjudicating authority found that supplies to the SEZ unit/developer were made during July 2017 and August 2017 whereas the refund application was filed for February 2018. The appellant's explanation of a typographical error in GSTR 3B and that the IGST liability had been discharged in the earlier months was examined and not accepted as a ground to permit a refund for a different period. The Commissioner (Appeals) concurred with the adjudicating authority that the refund claim for February 2018 did not properly correspond to the period when the zero rated supplies were made and therefore the claim could not be allowed on that basis. [Paras 6, 8, 9]Refund claim for February 2018 was not allowable where the supplies were in July 2017 and August 2017 and the claim did not correctly correspond to the period of supply.Reconciliation and rectification of errors in GSTR 3B/GSTR 1 - Whether the appellant was entitled to relief notwithstanding its failure to rectify GSTR 3B entries by utilizing the reconciliation/rectification mechanism laid down in CBIC circulars. - HELD THAT: - The order relied on Circular No.7/7/2017 GST and Circular No.26/26/2017 GST which provide for rectification of errors in FORM GSTR 3B through subsequent filings and automatic reconciliation with FORM GSTR 1/FORM GSTR 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellant ought to have availed the rectification mechanism to correct the misclassification in its GSTR 3B for July/August 2017. Since the appellant did not take advantage of the prescribed correction procedure and failed to amend the returns as per the circulars, its claim could not succeed. [Paras 7, 8, 9]Failure to avail the rectification/reconciliation facility under the specified CBIC circulars disentitles the appellant to the refund claimed.Inadmissibility of IGST refund where underlying transaction pertains to pre GST period - Whether IGST refund was admissible in respect of invoices which showed commission relating to June 2017 (pre GST period) on which service tax, not IGST, was payable. - HELD THAT: - The invoices numbered RIL/PPS 06 and RIL/PPS 07 were found to pertain to commission for June 2017, a pre GST period when service tax liability arose. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the adjudicating authority's finding that those invoices could not form the basis for an IGST refund claim. That factual finding was treated as a bar to allowing the IGST refund in respect of such transactions. [Paras 2, 6, 7]IGST refund is inadmissible insofar as the claim relates to transactions pertaining to the pre GST period where service tax, not IGST, was the chargeable duty.Final Conclusion: The Commissioner (Appeals) found no infirmity in the adjudicating authority's rejection of the refund claim: the refund filed for February 2018 did not correspond to the period of supply (July/August 2017), the appellant failed to avail the prescribed rectification/reconciliation mechanism, and certain invoices related to the pre GST period making IGST refund inapplicable; the appeal is dismissed.

Refund of accumulated input tax credit on account of inverted tax structure - conditions for concessional-rate supplies to exporters under the notifications - burden of proof for compliance with notification conditions - requirement of intimation/acknowledgement to jurisdictional tax officer - effect of procedural circular on withholding refunds for minor lapsesRefund of accumulated input tax credit on account of inverted tax structure - conditions for concessional-rate supplies to exporters under the notifications - requirement of intimation/acknowledgement to jurisdictional tax officer - Refund claim under Section 54 of the CGST Act for Input Tax Credit accumulated in November-2017 was inadmissible for non-compliance with conditions (v) and (ix) of Notifications No.40/2017 and No.41/2017 dated 23.10.2017. - HELD THAT: - The notifications permit supplies to exporters at concessional rates subject to specified conditions including (v) that the registered recipient shall place an order at concessional rate and provide a copy to the jurisdictional tax officer of the supplier, and (ix) that upon export the registered recipient shall provide the shipping bill/bill of export and proof of export to the supplier and the supplier's jurisdictional tax officer. The adjudicating authority found, and the Commissioner (Appeals) concurred, that these conditions were not complied with in the present case. The appellant's contention that copies of purchase orders, shipping bills or bills of lading had been submitted to the Range Office was not substantiated by dated, stamped acknowledgements from the department. The Court placed the burden of proof on the appellant to demonstrate when and how the documents were furnished to the department; absence of departmental acknowledgement or other substantial corroboration meant the conditions in the notifications remained unfulfilled. Having found non-compliance with the mandatory conditions precedent for concessional treatment and linked refund entitlement, the adjudicating authority's rejection of the refund claim was held to be legally sustainable. [Paras 7]Refund claim rejected for November-2017 due to non-compliance with conditions (v) and (ix) of Notifications No.40/2017 and No.41/2017.Burden of proof for compliance with notification conditions - effect of procedural circular on withholding refunds for minor lapses - The appellant's reliance on procedural circulars and assertion of submission by speed post/email did not relieve the statutory requirement of proving compliance; minor procedural lapses could not be invoked to override the need for departmental acknowledgement in this case. - HELD THAT: - The appellant invoked Circular No.37/11/2018-GST which advises not to withhold refunds for minor procedural lapses. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted the circular's clarifications regarding supplies to merchant exporters and optionality of concessional rates, but held that the circular does not absolve a claimant from satisfying the specific documentary and intimation conditions set out in the notifications. The appellant failed to produce stamped, dated acknowledgement or other convincing evidence that the required intimation/documents were actually received by the jurisdictional office within the requisite time; mere assertion of sending documents by speed post or email, without corroborative departmental receipt, was insufficient. Consequently the circular could not be applied to validate the claim where the threshold conditions remained unproven. [Paras 6, 7]Circular clarifications do not cure absence of required departmental acknowledgement; therefore the procedural argument did not entitle the appellant to refund.Final Conclusion: The appeal is rejected. The refund claim for November-2017 is not allowable because the appellant failed to prove compliance with the mandatory intimation and export-document conditions in Notifications No.40/2017 and No.41/2017; reliance on procedural circulars and uncorroborated transmission of documents did not suffice to overturn the rejection.

Scope of supply - transfer of business assets treated as supply of goods - transfer of going concern - requirement of E-way Bill for movement of goods under Section 68/Rule 138A - detention and penalty for non-production of documents under Section 129Scope of supply - transfer of business assets treated as supply of goods - transfer of going concern - Whether the transfer of used fixed assets from one branch to another branch of the same GSTIN constitutes a supply attracting GST. - HELD THAT: - The adjudicating authority analysed the statutory meaning of 'supply' and the related entries in Schedule II. While Section 7(1) requires activities to be in the course or furtherance of business to qualify as supply, the use of the word 'includes' broadens the scope. The Court noted that transfer of a going concern or transfer of business assets can qualify as supply even if the act is not in the regular course of business. Schedule II treats transfer of business assets as supply of goods. On the facts, the goods moved (used computer systems, tube lights, fans) were accompanied by a delivery challan which showed taxable value and tax, and did not indicate a stock transfer. Consequently, the transfer was held to be a supply of goods rather than a mere intra-entity stock transfer, and therefore liable to GST.Transfer of the specified fixed assets between branches was held to be a supply (transfer of business assets) attracting GST.Requirement of E-way Bill for movement of goods under Section 68/Rule 138A - detention and penalty for non-production of documents under Section 129 - Whether non-production of a valid E-way Bill justified detention of goods and imposition of penalty equal to 100% of tax. - HELD THAT: - The authority applied the statutory scheme requiring the person-in-charge of a conveyance carrying goods above the prescribed value to carry documents including a valid E-way Bill. Non-production of the requisite documents amounts to contravention of the provisions and authorises detention under the relevant provisions. Given the Court's conclusion that the movement constituted a supply, the statutory requirement to carry an E-way Bill applied. The adjudicating authority's action of detaining the goods and imposing tax and a penalty equal to the tax under the detention provisions was upheld on that basis.Detention of goods and imposition of penalty for non-production of E-way Bill were held to be justified.Final Conclusion: The appeal was rejected: the inter-branch transfer of used fixed assets was held to be a supply of goods (transfer of business assets) attracting GST and, consequently, the requirement of an E-way Bill applied; detention and penalty for non-production of the E-way Bill were sustained.

Refund under inverted duty structure - meaning of "Net ITC" in Rule 89(5) - exclusion of input services and capital goods from "inputs" under Section 2(59) - alignment of Rule 89(5) with Section 54(3)(ii) and related notification - demand for recovery under Section 74(1) - interest under Section 50 - penalty beyond scope of show cause notice - penalty under Section 122(2)(b)Refund under inverted duty structure - meaning of "Net ITC" in Rule 89(5) - exclusion of input services and capital goods from "inputs" under Section 2(59) - alignment of Rule 89(5) with Section 54(3)(ii) and related notification - Net ITC for computing refund under the inverted duty structure does not include input tax on input services or capital goods. - HELD THAT: - The appellate authority examined the formula in Rule 89(5) read with Section 54(3)(ii) and the definition of "inputs" in Section 2(59). Section 2(59) defines "inputs" as goods other than capital goods used in the course or furtherance of business and therefore excludes services and capital goods. The authority noted the intent of the statute to restrict refund of unutilised ITC under inverted duty to credit on inputs (goods) only, and relied on the issuance of notification to align Rule 89(5) with the CGST Act clarifying that "Net ITC" excludes input tax credit availed for which refund is claimed under sub-rules (4A) or (4B). Applying these principles to the facts, the inclusion by the appellant of ITC on capital goods and input services in the Net ITC was not permissible, and the excess refund claimed on that basis was correctly disallowed. [Paras 5, 6]Claim to include input services and capital goods in Net ITC for refund under inverted duty structure rejected; excess refund disallowed.Refund on deemed exports - Claim that the refund ought to be allowed as refund arising from receipts under deemed exports was not allowable in the present proceedings. - HELD THAT: - The authority observed that entitlement to refund under the deemed export provisions arises under separate provisions and the appellant ought to have filed the claim under the relevant deemed export scheme. The adjudicator held that procedural mis filing of the claim under the inverted duty route could not be remedied at this stage by treating the application as one made under deemed export provisions where no such rule provision was invoked in the refund application now under scrutiny. [Paras 7]Appellant's contention that refund should be allowed as a deemed export refund rejected; appellant should have filed under the appropriate provisions.Penalty beyond scope of show cause notice - penalty under Section 122(2)(b) - Penalty confirmed under Section 122(2)(b) was set aside as it was beyond the scope of the show cause notice. - HELD THAT: - The appellate authority found that the show cause notice had proposed penalty under a different provision and that the adjudicating authority exceeded the scope of that notice by confirming penalty under Section 122(2)(b). Relying on the principle that adjudication must be confined to matters canvassed in the show cause notice, the authority held that imposing a penalty not proposed in the SCN was unlawful and therefore set aside the penalty under Section 122(2)(b). [Paras 8]Penalty under Section 122(2)(b) set aside for being beyond the scope of the show cause notice.Final Conclusion: Appeal disposed: refund claim under inverted duty structure was correctly restricted to Net ITC excluding input services and capital goods and the demand and interest were upheld to that extent; the appellant's plea for treatment as a deemed export refund was rejected; the penalty imposed under Section 122(2)(b) was set aside as beyond the scope of the show cause notice.