TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 1165
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 with ARN No. AA080620018229E generated on dated 13-6-2020 amounting to Rs. 28,29,962/- for the period July, 2017 to March, 2018 for refund on account of Input Tax Credit accumulated due to Inverted Tax Structure. 2.2 On examination of documents filed by the appellant, show cause notice vide reference No. ZN0806200313473 in Form RFD-08, dated 25-6-2020 was issued to the appellant that the refund claim was liable to be rejected on the grounds that "Claim for July, 2017 to February, 2018 is time barred. Claim for March, 2018 is inadmissible". The appellant has been directed to furnish a reply to the notice within fifteen days from the date of service of notice and also directed to appear before the adjudicating authority on 3-7-2020 at 11.01AM. Further, the adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original No. ZP0807200221752, dated 16-7-2020 has passed the order with remarks that "The refund claim is being rejected as claim for July, 2017 to February, 2018 is time barred and the claim for March, 2018 is inadmissible and now the refund claim is being rejected". 3. Being aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellant has filed appeal on 4-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laim filed on 13 June, 2020 by the appellant is within the provisions of statute and must not rejected. However, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, without giving the appellant time to file a reply to SCN dated 25 June, 2020; and violating the principles of natural justice by not affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant, passed a rejection order in Form GST RFD-06 vide Order No. ZP0S07200221752, dated 16 July, 2020. - that even the Impugned Order dated 16 July, 2020 is not a speaking and well reasoned order which the Ld. Adjudicating Authority is bound to pass in view of settled principles laid down by many Courts. - that the appellant hereby submits that the observation of the Ld. Adjudicating Authority in the Order dated 16 July, 2020 rejecting the refund claim is vague and unsustainable inasmuch as the same is factually correct. Having said so, the appellant submits as under : PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE HAVE BEEN GROSSLY VIOLATED BY THE LD. ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY WHILE PASSING IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No. 1053/2/2017-CX., dated 10 March, 2017 issued a Master Circular on show cause notice, Adjudication and Recovery in supersession of the previous 89 Circulars. Insofar as the issuance of show cause notice is concerned, it is categorically stated that it is a mandatory requirement according to the principles of natural justice, which are commonly known as audi alteram partem which means no one should be condemned unheard. - that no proper time was given to the appellant to file counter reply. - that even Rule 92(3) of the Rules prov.de that 15 days time from the date of receipt of SCN must be given to the assessee to reply to SCN but in the present scenario, effectively only 2 days time was granted to the appellant. REFUND FOR THE PERIOD JULY-FEB., 2017 WAS FILED BY THE APPELLANT WELL WITHIN THE TIME LIMITS GIVEN UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. - that Coming to the facts and circumstances of the present case, on, a careful perusal of the impugned Order dated 16 July, 202....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ported in 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1685 (Ker.). M/s. Amman Match Company v. The Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, reported in 2018 (363) E.L.T. 120 (Mad.) M/s. General Mills India Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI [2015 (322) E.L.T. 95 (Bom.) Shri Admar Mutt etc. etc. v. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Deptt. and Ors., AIR 1980 SC 1. M/s. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan [citation :- 2011 (273) E.L.T. 345 (S.C.)], Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, reported in (2001) 251 ITR 0084, West U.P. Sugar Mills Assn. v. State of U.P. (SC), reported in (2002) 2 SCC 645 and State of Rajasthan v. Mangilal Pindwal (SC), reported in (1996) 5 SCC 60, Sony India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, cited in 2014 (304) E.L.T. 660 (Del.) M.P. Re-cycling Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Cos. (Imports), Mumbai, cited in 2015 (318) E.L.T. 171 (Tri. - Mumbai). Collector of C. Ex. & Cus. v. Bajaj Tempo Ltd. - 1990 (50) E.L.T. 80 (Tribunal). In the Supreme Court of India Civil Appeal Nos. 702 and 840-843 of 1975-Assessment Year : 1957-1958 decided on : 18-12-1975 Appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; Govinddas v. Income Tax Officer, cited in AIR 1977 SC 552. (d) Sony India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi cited in 2014 (304) E.L.T. 660 (Del.) (e) Collector of C. Ex. & Cus. v. Bajaj Tempo Ltd., cited in 1990 (50) E.L.T. 80 (Tribunal) (f) Vaibhav Steel Corporation v. The Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax (VAT) and Others reported in 2014 (2) TMI 252 etc. 7. Further, the appellant has quoted the Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST, dated 18-11-2019. Before going to the merit of the issue under consideration the relevant statutory matrix are as under :- As per Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017, which reads as under :- "(54) - Any person claiming refund of any tax and interest, if any, paid on such tax or any other amount paid by him, may make an application before the expiry of two years from the relevant date in such form and manner as may be prescribed :" "Relevant date" has been prescribed under clause (e) of Explanation 2 under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017, w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as a player in a game who takes the place of an injured colleague". Further, the term "substitute" is more clarified as under :- Ordinarily wherever the word 'substitute' or 'substitution' is used by the legislature, it has the effect of deleting the old provision and make the new provision operative. The process of substitution consists of two steps : first, the old role is made to cease to exist and next the new rule is brought into existence in its place. The rule is that when a subsequent Act amends an earlier one in such a way as to incorporate itself, or a part of itself, into the earlier then the earlier Act must thereafter be read and construed as if the altered words had been written into the earlier Act with pen and ink and the old words scored out so that thereafter there is no need to refer to the amending Act at all. Further, the expression 'Substitute' means that the very expression 'substituted' would mean that the old clause stands obliterated. Therefore, it is clearly implies that, statutory provisions for "due date of filing of the application of refund" will be the newer substituted clause (e) of explanation (2) to section 54(14) of CGS....