TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 939
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt has filed refund claim under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 of Rs. 2,53,95,075/- for the period September- 2018 in respect of Excess Tax paid. Refund rejected Rs.2,53,95,075/- (IGST) Total Rs. 2,53,95,075/-. 2 APPL/JPR/CGST/ JP/94/X/2020/ Order dated 01.09.2020 Appellant has filed refund claim under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 of Rs. 1,40,99,824/- for the period June-2018 in respect of Excess Tax paid. Refund rejected Rs. 1,40,99,824/- (IGST) Total Rs. 1,40,99,824/-. 3 APPL/JPR/CGST/ JP/95/X/2020/ Order dated 01.09.2020 Appellant has filed refund claim under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 of Rs. 2,49,174/- for the period August- 2018 in respect of Excess Tax paid. Refund rejected Rs. 2,49,174/-(IGST) Total Rs. 2,49,174/-. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE: 2.1 The appellant having GSTIN No.08AAACL1069K1ZF is engaged in manufacture and supply of pharmaceutical products falling under Chapter 30 of the CGST Tariff having their principal place of business at 51A, Jhotwara Industrial Area, Jaipur, has filed refund claims under Section 54(3) of CGST Act,2017 in respect of excess payment of tax for the period and amount mentioned at above in Para-1 of the above T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd self-evident from the relevant Forms GSTR-3B reflecting payment of GST twice. The exact details of sequence of events and types of errors occurred in raising of invoices and credit notes are discussed later incoming para. 3.2 During the month of August, 2017 to October, 2017(Relevant Period), the Appellant supplied certain pharmaceutical goods against 23 GST invoices having taxable value of Rs. 11,83,89,351/- and GST of Rs. 1,42,06,722/- to their customers, namely, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Delhi (MOHFW). Supplies to MOHFW are routed through a procurement agent called RITES Ltd, who further supplies the goods to different consignees situated across India on behalf of MOHFW. Supplies to MOHFW were made as supplies to unregistered customer i.e. B2C supply. 3.3 The 23 B2C GST invoices were issued to RITES Ltd instead of MOHFW with taxable value of Rs. 11,74,98,541/- and GST of Rs. 1,40,99,825/ (hereinafter referred to as 'Invoice ONE'). Thus, there were two errors here, namely, the following : * B2C GST invoices were issued in the name of RITES Ltd (instead of MOHFW); and * GST was short paid to the extent of Rs. 1,06,898/-. The aforesaid 23 B2C GST invo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... payable on the 23 B2C GST invoices to be Rs. 1,40,99,825/-(i.e. Rs. 1,42,06,723/- plus Rs. 1,13,30,630/- minus Rs. 1,14,37,527/-). However, while Credit Notes ONE, Credit Notes TWO and Debit Note were correctly disclosed in the GSTR-1 returns of 13 respective months, the Debit Note was inadvertently also considered as liability in the corresponding GSTR-3B returns of the respective months. This culminated into excess payment of GST of Rs. 1,14,37,527/- (i.e. pertaining to Debit Note) in August, 2018 (GST of Rs. 2,49,174/-) and in September, 2018 (GST of Rs. 1,11,88,353/-). 3.9 Further, as mentioned in para above, a new set of 23 B2C GST invoices in the name of MOHFW with GST of Rs. 1,42,06,722/- were to be issued. However, while issuing the same, again due to an inadvertent error, the Place of Supply ('POS') was wrongly printed on the 23 B2C GST invoices issued in June 2018 (hereinafter referred to as 'Invoice TWO'). 3.10 In order to rectify the above mistake of wrong POS in GST Invoice TWO, a set of B2C GST Credit Notes with GST of Rs. 1,42,06,722/- were issued in September 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Credit Notes THREE'). Even these adjustment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Accordingly, the said two separate refund claims are subject matter of two separate Appeals being filed simultaneously. 3.15 From the aforesaid reply to the Show Cause Notice, it is clear that the Appellants have not adjusted Credit Notes in their GST Returns and therefore refund claimed for excess payment of tax, is in order. The errors primarily are due to the following reason : 3.16 Excess payment of tax is on account of upload of Debit Note and Invoice THREE in GSTR-3B of September, 2018 on which GST of Rs. 2,53,95,075/- was paid additionally. 3.17 The Appellants first time paid GST of Rs. 1,40,99,825/- for the disputed supply covered by 23 B2C invoices and this factum was duly reflected in both GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B filed for the period from August to October, 2017. This is manifestly self-evident and apodictic. 3.18 Second time, the Appellants inadvertently paid GST of Rs. 1,42,06,722/- by considering Invoice TWO as additional liability in GSTR-3B of June, 2018. As explained in the forgoing paras, it is reiterated that in order to rectify the mistake of having issued invoices wrongly in the name of RITES LTD instead of MOHFW, the Appellant issued Invoice-TWO being 23 B2C G....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... there were some inadvertent errors in 23 GST Invoices originally issued. These errors were supposed to be rectified by way of GST Credit Notes and fresh GST Invoices. However, these adjustments were required only in the Form GSTR-1, and not in the Form GSTR-3B of the subsequent tax period, as there was, admittedly, no error in the GST portion. (c) Furthermore, the Credit Note ONE and Credit Note TWO were duly issued and uploaded in Form GSTR -1 alone. The fresh set of GST Invoices, i.e. Debit Note and Invoice THREE were also uploaded correctly in Form GSTR-1. However, the Debit Note and the Invoice THREE were also wrongly uploaded in form GSTR-3B of September, 2018, leading to EXCESS PAYMENT OF GST OF Rs. 2,53,95,075/- IN FORM GSTR-3B OF SEPTEMBER, 2018. (d) Accordingly, the excess payment of GST in the present Refund Claim is on account of upload of Debit Note and Invoice THREE in GSTR-3B of September 2018 on which GST of Rs. 2,53,95,075/- was paid additionally and erroneously. 3.22 THAT the learned Adjudicating Authority has, in view of the foregoing explanation and ground, erred in concluding that the excess payment of tax has been compensated, inasmuch as the excess payme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....funds may arise under different provisions of GST law, which inter alia, include "Excess payment due to mistake or otherwise". 3.25 THAT the learned Adjudicating Authority has failed to appreciate that, as per Notification No.16/2020-Central Tax, dated 23-3-2020, sub-rule (4A) has been inserted in Rule 86 of the CGST Rules, 2017 which reads as under : (4A) Where a registered person has claimed refund of any amount paid as tax wrongly paid or paid in excess for which debit has been made from the electronic credit ledger, the said amount, if found admissible, shall be recredited to the electronic credit ledger by the proper officer by an order made in FORM GST PMT-03." The aforesaid amendment, with reference to payment through Electronic Credit Ledger", has also been explained in C.B.I.&C. Circular No. 135/05/2020-GST, dated 31-3-2020. It is, therefore, submitted that the Government recognizes the fact that there can be issues related to excess payment of tax due to various reasons, and such excess payment of tax is to be refunded. The impugned Order is, therefore, in conflict with the specific directions/instructions of the Board. 3.26 THAT the learned Adjudicating Authority ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....681 Shiv Shanker Dal Mills reported in AIR 1980 SC 1037 4. Personal Hearing in the case was held on 05.02.2021 through video conference, wherein, Shri Subramanyam Kaza, Authorized Representative of the appellant, appeared for personal hearing and explained the case in detail and reiterated the submission already made in the grounds of appeal. Further, he stated that, will send a summary of grounds of appeal through email. In view of above, he requested for early decision. 5. Shri Sunil Kumar authorized representative (duly authorized by the appellant) vide his letter dated 08.03.2021 has submitted GSTR-1 returns for August, 2017 to Oct. 2017, June, 2018, August, 2018 and Sept.2018, copy of sample invoices, debit notes and credit notes issued, excel statement regarding the details of set of invoice 01, Invoice 02 and invoice 03, debit note, credit not 01, credit note 2 and credit note 3. He has further submitted that they have reported one credit note having IGST liability of Rs. 1,53,594/- in the GSTR-1 return for the month of October, 2018 and the same has not been reported in the GSTR 3 B return of October, 2018. 6. The Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division-A, Jaipur has bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tle to claim refund of excess paid tax in terms of Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017. 9. I find that the appellant issued invoice No.1 to M/s RITES of taxable value Rs. 11,74,98,541/- and GST Rs. 1,40,99,825/- and also issued Debit Note of taxable value Rs. 9,53,12,728/- and GST Rs. 1,14,37,527/- . In this regard they issued Credit Note No.1 and 2 of that much of amount to negate effect of invoice and debit Note. The appellant further issued invoices No.2 in the name of MOHFW of taxable value of Rs. 11,83,89,351/- and GST Rs. 1,42,06,722/-. The appellant mentioned wrong place of supply in the invoice, therefore, the appellant issued credit Note 3 against invoice No.2. Thereafter the appellant issued invoice No.3 to MOHFW of the same value and GST. 10. Further I find that in this case, the appellant has issued 3 Credit notes and one debit note, therefore this case is covered under the provisions of Section 34 of the CGST Act, 2017. Further I find that the appellant has reported credit notes involved GST amount of Rs. 3,98,70,298/- in GSTR-1 of Sept.,2018 (which has been filed after 30.09.2018) but from GSTR-3B of Sept.,2018, it appears that they did not adjust liability as per Sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in terms of section 34 of the CGST Act. He shall declare the details of such credit notes in the return for the month during which such credit note has been issued. The tax liability shall be adjusted in the return subject to conditions of section 34 of the CGST Act. There is no need to file a separate refund claim. However, in cases where there is no output liability against which a credit note can be adjusted, registered persons may proceed to file a claim under "Excess payment of tax, if any" through FORM GST RFD-01. From the above legal provisions and factual position, it is clear that liability may be adjusted subject to time limit and conditions as per provisions of Section 34 (2) of the CGST, Act, 2017. From the above legal provisions of Section 34 (2) ibid, the appellant was required to adjust the tax liability from amount of credit note in GST return of that month in which month credit note has been issued and not later than September, 2018 (following the end of the financial year) in which such supply was made, or the date of furnishing, the relevant annual return, whichever is earlier, and the tax liability shall be adjusted in such manner as may be prescribed. Theref....