2020 (1) TMI 1295 - Commissioner - GST

Refund claim appeal for wrong Cess payment on vehicle sale rejected under CGST Act

M/s. HDFC Bank Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division-H, Jaipur

The appeal for a refund claim under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 for wrong payment of Cess on the sale of a vehicle was rejected. The appellant, a ... Refund of Cess paid wrongly - Sale of vehicle - refund filed on the ground that the CESS is on Old and Used Motor Vehicle was exempted vide N/N. 01/2018 Compensation Cess dated 25.01.2018 - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the invoice raised by the appellant in the name of employee Shri Abhishek Mahajan has mentioned in the column description of the Goods ‘Advance Towards the Sale of Car’ and except this nothing more has been mentioned regarding Old and New nature of the Car. Also, the registration number, engine number and make year were not mentioned at all in the invoice from which the conclusion can be drawn that the car mentioned in the face of invoice is old one - Benefit of Notification No.1/2018-Compensation Cess(Rate) dated 25.01.2018 can be availed for the old and used motor vehicles only - The appellant has not furnished any substantial evidence which prove that the car mentioned in the invoice is old and used in their grounds of appeal. The appellant’s contention that the CESS is not applicable on advance towards sale of the car in the light of the N/N. 66/2017- Central Tax dated 15.11.2017 - On plain reading of the Notification it is ample clear that the taxes are payable on the outward supply of goods at the time of supply. But in the instant case on perusal of documents submitted by the appellant it is not evident as on which date the supply of car has been affected to the employee. In the absence of the date of supply of car, the benefit of notification can not be extended to the appellant. Appeal dismissed. Issues:1. Refund claim under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 for wrong payment of Cess on the sale of a vehicle.2. Rejection of refund claim by the adjudicating authority based on lack of evidence that the car was old and used.3. Applicability of Notification No. 66/2017 (Central Tax) dated 15.11.2017 on Cess payment for advance received against supply.4. Lack of evidence regarding the date of supply of the car affecting the extension of benefits under the notification.Analysis:1. The appellant, a banking company, filed a refund claim for the wrong payment of Cess amounting to Rs. 66,359 on the sale of a vehicle, citing exemption under Notification No.01/2018 Compensation Cess. The claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority due to the absence of evidence proving that the car was old and used, a prerequisite for availing the benefit of the notification.2. The appellant contended that as per Notification No. 66/2017 (Central Tax), no Cess was payable on advances received against supply. However, the lack of clarity on the date of supply of the car in the documents submitted by the appellant led to the rejection of this argument by the appellate authority.3. During the personal hearing, the appellant's representative reiterated the grounds of appeal, emphasizing the reversal and adjustment of CGST and SGST amounts but the inability to do the same for Cess due to its discontinuance from 25.01.2018. The appellant sought a refund for the Cess amount based on this argument.4. The appellate authority, after reviewing the case and submissions, found that the appellant failed to provide substantial evidence regarding the old and used nature of the car mentioned in the invoice. The absence of crucial details like registration number, engine number, and make year, along with the unclear nature of the car mentioned in the invoice, led to the rejection of the appeal.5. Ultimately, the appeal was rejected based on the lack of evidence supporting the appellant's claim and the failure to establish the applicability of the relevant notifications on Cess payment for the advance received against the supply of the car. The decision was made considering the specific requirements outlined in the notifications and the insufficient documentation provided by the appellant.