TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeals Granted for Refund Claims due to Procedural Violations</h1> <h3>Social Scape Tech LLP Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DIVISION- H, JAIPUR</h3> Social Scape Tech LLP Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DIVISION- H, JAIPUR - 2020 (43) G. S. T. L. 68 (Commr. Appl. - GST - ... Issues:Refund claim rejection without issuance of show cause notice, deficiency memo, and opportunity of being heard under GST Law and principles of natural justice.Analysis:The Commissioner (Appeals) Central Goods and Service Tax, Jaipur addressed two appeals filed by M/s Social Scape Tech LLP against Orders-in-Original passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax Division-H, Jaipur. The appeals were filed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The appellant sought refund claims under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 for different periods related to the accumulation of Input Tax Credit (ITC) due to export of services or goods/services. However, the refund claims were rejected by the adjudicating authority based on the absence of physical submission of relevant documents despite being filed on the portal, rendering them inadmissible as per Circular No. 79/53/2018-GST.The appellant contested the rejection of the refund applications on various grounds, primarily arguing the violation of GST Law and principles of natural justice. They claimed that the rejection lacked the issuance of a show cause notice, deficiency memo in GST RFD-03, and an opportunity of being heard. The personal hearing for both cases was conducted through video conference, where the appellant's representative detailed the case and requested a prompt decision.Upon reviewing the case records and submissions, the Commissioner found that the adjudicating authority failed to follow the prescribed procedures. Specifically, it was noted that no deficiency memo in Form RFD-03 or show cause notice in the Form of RFD-08 was issued to the appellant, and no opportunity of being heard was provided. The Commissioner highlighted the importance of adhering to the rules under the CGST Act, 2017, emphasizing the necessity of issuing show cause notices and providing opportunities for personal hearings before rejecting refund claims.Referring to Rule 90 and Rule 92 of the CGST Rules, 2017, the Commissioner emphasized the requirement for proper communication of deficiencies and the issuance of notices before rejecting refund claims. The failure to issue a speaking order and provide an opportunity for the appellant to be heard was deemed a denial of natural justice. Consequently, the Commissioner set aside the rejection of the refund claims and directed the appellant to submit all relevant documents for processing in accordance with the prescribed provisions and procedures under the CGST Act, 2017 and CGST Rules.In conclusion, both appeals were disposed of in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the importance of following due process and principles of natural justice in adjudicating refund claims under the GST Law.
TaxTMI 