2021 (6) TMI 42

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er) Period of Dispute Rejection refund amount 1 APPL/JPR/CGST/AL/67/VIII/20/ Order No. Nil dated 6-4-2020 September, 2017 5,42,196/- 2 APPL/JPR/CGST/AL/68/VIII/20/ Order No. Nil dated 6-4-2020 October, 2017 3,75,181/- 2. Brief facts of the case : 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the appellant having GST No. 08ACCFS3802Q1ZR is engaged in activity of Steel Fabrication. The appellant while filing the GSTR-3B return for the month of September, 2017 has mistakenly shown output tax liability of IGST Rs. 5,75,655/- instead of output tax liability of IGST Rs. 33,458.40 resulting excess payment of IGST Rs. 5,42,196/- . Likewise while filing the GSTR-3B for the month of October, 2017, the appellant mistakenly shown output tax liability of IGST Rs. 4,36,917/- instead of IGST Rs. 63,036/- resulting excess payment of IGST Rs. 3,75,181/- and the tax liability was discharged accordingly. The appellant has filed refund applications on 11-2-2020 on GST portal under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017. 2.2 On scrutiny of refund applications, the Proper Officer issued a show cause notices in Form of GST-RFD-08, dated 2-3-2020 proposing ther....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on at the time of filing the Annual Return for the relevant FY 2017-18 • that on realizing the mistake, the appellant deposited the short-paid amount of Rs. 911,652/- (CGST Rs. 455,826/- + SGST Rs. 455,826/-) vide DRC-03, dated 5-2-2020, on his own volition under Section 73(5) of the CGST Act, 2017. Consequently, the mistakenly paid excess amount of Rs. 5,42,196.60 and Rs. 3,75,181/- respectively of IGST became refundable to the appellant as the same was not required to be paid. • that the appellant accordingly, filed a refund application ARN No. AA080220015976C, dated 11-2-2020 on GST portal claiming refund of IGST of Rs. 5,42,196/- and Rs. 375181/- respectively. Thereafter, the appellant was issued a show cause notice under ARN AA080802200159700 proposing rejection of the refund claim on the ground of limitation. • that the amount deposited mistakenly as IGST, though not required to be pad is in the nature of pre-deposit and not lax, therefore, limitation as provided under Section 54 not applicable. • that the appellant submits that it is undisputed that they were required to pay IGST of Rs. 33,458.40 only for the month of Sept.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....esent case deserves to be governed by the provisions of Section 19 of the IGST read with Section 77 of the CGST Act, 2017 as these relate to tax wrongly paid by considering a transaction to be inter-State (attracting IGST) instead of intra-State (attracting CGST + RGST) resulting in wrong payment of IGST instead of CGST & RGST. It is further submitted that Section 19 of the IGST Act, 2017 read with Section 77 does not prescribe any time limit for refund of tax period. 6. On going through the case records and written as well as oral submission of the appellant, I find that the issue involved in the instant case for consideration are as under - (a)          Whether excess payment of IGST mistakenly would he consider as a deposit or Tax? (b)          Whether application for refund filed by the appellant is time barred in terms of Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 or not? (c)           Whether principle of natural justice has been fallowed in the instant case or not? (a) In response to issue at Sl. No. (a) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ith the provisions of sub-section (6) of section 49, may claim such refund in the return furnished under section 39 in such manner as may be prescribed. SECTION 54(14) - (1) ...... (2) "relevant date" means - (a)          in the case of goods exported out of India where a refund of tax paid is available in respect of goods themselves or, as the case may be, the inputs or input services used in such goods, - (i)            if the goods are exported by sea or air, the date on which the ship or the aircraft in which such goods are loaded, leaves India; or (ii)           if the goods are exported by land, the date on which such goods pass the frontier; or (iii)          if the goods are exported by post, the date of despatch of goods by the Post Office concerned to a place outside India; (b)          In the case of supply of goods regarded as deemed exports where a refu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d have file for the said tax period upto 20th November, 2019 while the appellant filed the refund application on 11-2-2020 which is clearly beyond two years from the relevant date as prescribed under Section 54(14) of the CGST Act. Further, the appellant has contended in their additional submission that the present case of refund claim to be governed by the provision of Section 19 of the IGST Act, 2017 as these relates to tax wrongly paid by considering a transaction to be inter-State attracting (IGST) Instead of inter-State attracting (CGST + SGST). Further he submitted that the above said provision does not prescribe any time limit for refund of tax paid. On going through the above plea of the appellant, I find that the appellant has taken contrary view in the additional submission and he himself differ from the earlier submission by admitting the fact that he had paid tax wrongly by considering a transaction to be inter-State instead of inter-State. Further, I find that Rule 89(2) clause (j) of CGST Rules, 2017 provides that the refund application should be filed by the applicant along with a statement showing the details of transactions considered as intra-State supply but w....