2021 (1) TMI 419 - Commissioner - GST

Commissioner rejects refund claim due to premature filing and tax discrepancies, emphasizing finality in claims.

The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection of the appellant's refund claim, citing premature filing during an ongoing investigation and discrepancies ... Refund of IGST - Rejection on the grounds that the appellant has filed a refund claim in other category and is premature as investigation in the matter is pending with DGGSTI, Jaipur Zonal unit, Jaipur - HELD THAT:- The appellant has deposited the said amount vide DRC-03 dated 02.03.2020 during the investigation and further he himself stated that matter is still under investigation with DGGSTI, Jaipur. Therefore, the refund claim filed by the appellant at this stage is premature and it has not attained its finality. Accordingly. the appeal filed by the appellant is rejected - the Order in Original passed by the adjudicating authority is upheld - there are no infirmity in the impugned order - appeal disposed off. Issues involved:1. Rejection of refund claim by the Adjudicating Authority based on investigation status and tax period declaration.2. Appellant's contention regarding lack of natural justice in not providing a copy of the DGGI letter.3. Dispute over tax period declaration and voluntary deposit of tax.4. Premature filing of refund claim during ongoing investigation.5. Appellant's arguments regarding GST tariff rate on parts/components of sprinkler system.Issue 1: Rejection of refund claim based on investigation status and tax period declaration:The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Sprinkler Irrigation Systems, filed a refund claim under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the claim citing that it was filed in the wrong category and for the wrong period. The Authority also mentioned that the investigation by DGGSTI, Jaipur was pending, making the claim premature. The rejection was based on comments received from DGGSTI, Jaipur Zonal Unit, Jaipur, stating that the tax period declared by the appellant was incorrect, and the refund amount had been voluntarily deposited for the financial year 2018-19. The Authority held that the claim was inadmissible due to ongoing investigations.Issue 2: Lack of natural justice in not providing a copy of the DGGI letter:The appellant argued that the rejection of the refund claim without providing a copy of the letter from DGGI, Jaipur violated the principles of natural justice. They contended that the lack of access to this vital document hindered their ability to defend against the rejection, rendering the order against the law of natural justice.Issue 3: Dispute over tax period declaration and voluntary deposit of tax:The appellant disputed the Adjudicating Authority's observation regarding the tax period declaration and voluntary deposit of tax. They asserted that the period of dispute should be calculated from the date of deposit of tax, not from the period of the dispute. The appellant claimed that the amount was paid under the direction of visiting officers and not voluntarily, as alleged by the Authority.Issue 4: Premature filing of refund claim during ongoing investigation:The Adjudicating Authority upheld the rejection of the refund claim, stating that the appellant had filed the claim prematurely while the investigation by DGGSTI, Jaipur was ongoing. The Authority emphasized that the matter had not reached finality, as indicated by the appellant's own admission that the investigation was still in progress.Issue 5: Appellant's arguments regarding GST tariff rate on parts/components of sprinkler system:The appellant highlighted their manufacturing of Sprinkler Irrigation Systems and the applicable GST rate of 12% post-amendment. They referenced circulars and notifications to support their claim that the parts/components of the system fell under the 12% GST rate category. The appellant contested the Adjudicating Authority's assertion that the parts/components were subject to an 18% GST rate, emphasizing the legal provisions and circulars clarifying the applicable rate.The judgment by the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection of the appellant's refund claim, emphasizing the premature filing during an ongoing investigation and discrepancies in tax period declaration. The appellant's arguments regarding natural justice, tax period calculation, voluntary deposit of tax, and GST tariff rates were considered but ultimately not found to warrant setting aside the Adjudicating Authority's decision. The judgment highlighted the importance of finality in claims and investigations, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.