Partial ITC Refund Approved: Valid Suppliers' Claims Upheld Despite Single Vendor Discrepancy Under Rule 96

The HC allowed the petition challenging the rejection of ITC refund. Despite issues with one supplier (M/s Siddhi Impex), the court directed the Adjudicating Authority to process the refund application for other legitimate suppliers amounting to 54,99,846/- within four weeks, setting aside the previous orders of rejection.

---

---

Issues involved:
The petitioner challenges the rejection of refund of Input Tax Credit (ITC) and subsequent appeal dismissal based on the non-existence of a supplier and mismatch in invoice and FOB values.

Impugned Order dated 05.08.2021:
The petitioner applied for refund of ITC related to goods exported, but the Adjudicating Authority rejected the claim due to a non-existent supplier, M/s Siddhi Impex, as confirmed by physical verification.

Impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 31.05.2022:
The Appellate Authority upheld the rejection, emphasizing that ITC claimed from M/s Siddhi Impex was fraudulent, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Details of the Judgement:
The petitioner provided details of all vendors and invoices, asserting the genuineness of purchases made. However, the rejection was based on the non-existence of M/s Siddhi Impex, one of the suppliers.

The Appellate Authority highlighted that ITC claimed from M/s Siddhi Impex was not received, leading to the conclusion of fraudulent refund claims. The petitioner voluntarily deposited the disputed amount in its ledger after the cancellation of M/s Siddhi Impex's registration.

The petitioner sought a refund for ITC related to suppliers other than M/s Siddhi Impex, amounting to &8377;54,99,846/-. The Court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned orders, and directed the Adjudicating Authority to process the refund application promptly within four weeks.

---