TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1854
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vision, Baddi (for brevity 'the adjudicating authority'). Accordingly, I take up the appeal for decision. 2. Briefly stated, that the appellants were registered with the Department vide GSTIN No. 02AAECM5320Q1ZG. On 6-2-2018, the appellant had filed an application for Budgetary Support with the jurisdictional CGST office for an amount of Rs. 20,77,779/- for the quarter July, 2017 to September, 2017. The claim had been filed under the "Scheme of Budgetary Support under Goods and Services Tax regime to the units located in States of Jammu & Kashmir, Uttara-khand, Himachal Pradesh and North East including Sikkim" notified vide Notification dated 5-10-2017 (Published in the Gazette on 11-10-2017) issued by Ministry of Commerce and Industr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in respect of CGST. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 7,01,058/- Was recommended for sanction and an amount of Rs. 9,87,558/- was recommended for rejection in respect of IGST. Further, an amount of Rs. 3,80,183/- claimed by the appellant in respect of CGST, was also recommended for rejection. 5. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority vide the impugned order sanctioned provisionally budgetary support amounting to Rs. 7,01,058/- to the appellant and ordered the same to be paid through PFMS in the bank account. The adjudicating authority further rejected the refund claim of an amount of Rs. 9,87,558/- towards IGST and Rs. 3,80,183/- claimed in respect of CGST. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellants have filed the instant appeal aga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und was not correct as the balance lying after filing of return for the month of September was because of TRAN credit as per the provisions of the GST laws in respect of transitional credit. * That the appellants had utilized the entire credit available while filing return for the month of July, 2017 and August, 2017 and paid the balance amount in cash. Accordingly, the appellant should be allowed the refund of the amounts paid in cash as per the scheme of budgetary support. * That input credit available at the end of the quarter was mainly due to TRAN credit taken by the appellant on 26 September, 2017 which was not available for utilization in the month of July & August, 2017 to settle the Liability. * That the amount of refund clai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efund benefit. He has nothing to add. 8. I have carefully gone through the facts of case, Sanction Order, Grounds of Appeals as well as the submissions put forth by the appellants at the time of personal hearing, The issue before me to be decided in the case is whether under the provisions of Scheme of Budgetary Support the appellants are entitled to the refund of tax paid in cash under Reverse Charge Mechanism and secondly whether the appellants are entitled to refund based on unutilized tax credit at the end of the quarter July, 2017 to September, 2017. 9. I find that the appellants are registered with the jurisdictional authorities of the department of CGST under the "Scheme of Budgetary Support under Goods and Service Tax re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the tax paid under Reverse Charge Mechanism cannot be treated as duty paid under the forward charge i.e. outward tax for claiming the refund of the same under the scheme of Budgetary Support. As such the plea of the appellant does not hold good inasmuch as every payment made in cash has to be treated as tax paid in cash, whereas in this scenario the tax paid on behalf of other person's liability is available in the form of Cenvat credit. Hence, the adjudicating authority has correctly rejected the claim of the appellants on this issue and I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. 11. Further, I find that the adjudicating authority has also rejected appellants claim on the ground that they had balance in TRAN-1 by the end ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sis as has been pleaded by the appellant in the grounds of appeal. Moreover, I find that even the jurisdictional Range Officer in his report has categorically mentioned that at the end of the quarter the appellant had balance in their credit account and the claim of the refund on this account was not recommended for sanction. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority has correctly rejected the claim of the appellant in view of the provisions laid down in the scheme of budgetary support ibid. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and the same is upheld. As such the plea of the appellant mentioned in the grounds of appeal that on monthly basis they had no credit balance during the month of July 17 & August 17 is not tenable inasmuch....