TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 1213
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 of Rs. 51,312/- for the period Sept., 2017 in respect of Tax paid on an Intra-State Supply which is subsequently held to be Inter-State supply & vice versa. Refund rejected Rs. 51,312/- (IGST) Total Rs. 51,312/- 2 APPL/JPR/ CGST/JP/40/VII/2020/ ZU0804200414937, dated 23-4-2020 Appellant has filed refund clam under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 of Rs. 49,578/- for the period July, 2017 in respect of Tax paid on an Intra-State Supply which is subsequently held to be Inter-State supply & vice versa. Refund rejected Rs. 49,578/- (IGST) Total Rs. 49,578/-. 3 APPL/JPR/ CGST/JP/41/VII/2020/ ZO0804200414960, dated 23-4-2020 Appellant has filed refund claim under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 of Rs. 87,006/- for the period Aug., 2017 in respect of Tax paid on an Intra-State Supply which is subsequently held to be Inter-State supply & vice versa. Refund rejected Rs. 87,006/- (IGST) Total Rs. 87,006/-. 4 APPL/JPR/ CGST/JP/43/VII/2020/ ZO0804200415171, dated 23-4-2020 Appellant has filed refund claim under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 of Rs. 45,425/- for the period (FY 2017-2018 July, 2017 to March, 2018) in respect of Excess Tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Dec., 2019 tried to file Applications for refund under the category of "Refund on Tax paid on an intra-State Supply which is subsequently held to be inter-State Supply and vice versa" in accordance with Section 77. * that applicant keeps trying from Dec., 2019 to Mar., 2020 to file application but could not file the application under the correct category due to glitch in GSTN portal issue. The applicant, in the face of technical glitch faced with GSTN as an abundant caution to safeguard the refund, filed application in the month of March, 2020 under the category of "Refund of Excess payment of tax" instead of under the category of "intra-State Supply which is subsequently held to be inter-State Supply and vice versa" * that appellant reproduce below relevant Sections of 54 of CGST Act, 2017 : Section 54 - Refund of tax Sub.S. - 1 of 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. Sub.S. - 5 of 54 - If, on receipt of any such application, the proper officer is satisfied that the whole o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t without prejudice to the submissions made in the foregoing paras, it is submitted that the notices issued by the department had, in the very first place, proceeded on the wrong premise. The notice could not have been issued on the issue of time bar of the refund claim filed by the appellant. * that refund of "tax paid on an intra-State supply which is subsequently held to be inter-State supply and vice versa (change of POS)" has been specifically provided in Rule 89(2)(j) of the CGST Rules, 2017 read with Table 7(j) of FORM GST RFD-01. * that the appellant had mentioned in reply to notice that while filing online refund application under Statement 06 of the FORM GST RFD-01, which is required to be submitted in terms of Rule 89(2)(j) of the CGST Rules, 2017 read with Table 7(j) of FORM GST RFD-01, the GSTN Portal didn't accept the application because of multiple technical and portal issues (Validation, Order No & Date etc.), consequently the appellant could not file the refund application under Rule 89(2)(j) of the CGST Rules, 2017 read with Table 7(j) of FORM GST RFO-01 and requested for grant of refund claim. * that since the appellant was not able to file refund applicati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing refund of wrongly paid tax arises only when the correct tax is paid. It is submitted that the relevant date under Section 54 for the purposes of Section 77 refund claims shall be the date of payment of tax which is correctly assessed. Violation of Principle of Natural Justice by Adjudicating Authority * that Appellant had submitted online refund claim application vide ANR No. AA080320032372T, dated 31-3-2020, AA080320032373R, dated 31-3-2020 ZO0804200092404, dated 6-4-2020, and AA080320032369G, dated 31-3-2020. Department issued notice No. ZT0804200099960, dated 22-4-2020, ZN0804200099782, dated 7-4-2020, ZO0804200099904, dated 7-4-2020 and ZT0804200427293, dated 8-4-2020 and informed appellant to appear for hearing on 15-4-2020. * that applicant is required to furnish reply to the notice issued in Form GST RFD-08) in Form GST RFD-09 online on GST Portal, within 15 days of issuance of notice and thereafter hearing should be granted. Appellant wish to highlight that department had granted hearing before submission of reply and also before timelines of 15 days of reply to notice to be filed. Appellants submitted on line reply to notice vide Form-GST-RFD-09 No. ZT08042000999....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ide mistake as tax is paid under the head of .IGST instead under the head of CGST & SGST. Appellant observed this error in the month of Aug., 2018 and immediately amendment was made in GSTR-1 & said transactions were correctly disclosed as intra-State transaction & tax liability under the head of CGST & SGST was correctly disclosed. That details of invoices on which excess IGST is paid which is subsequently amended in GSTR-1 enclosed. * that while filing GSTR-9 & GSTR-9C for the period 2017-18, appellant had paid correct tax liability under CGST & SGST head, basis amendment made in GSTR-1 was paid by cash ledger vide DRC-03 - AD0812190015944, dated 18-12-2019 for Rs. 49,577/-, AD0812190015944, dated 18-12-2019 for Rs. 87,006/-, which is enclosed. * that, appellant wish to state that it is undisputed fact that GST has been paid twice against one transaction i.e. first it was paid as IGST & then it was paid in GGST & SGST. That appellant wish to highlight that authority has collected excess tax which is not supposed to be collected and subsequently rejected stating application is time barred. * that even in case where any amount is paid by way of self-assessment in the event an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid. Further, the appellant has also cited below mentioned case laws in their defence :- K.R.S. Enterprises (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore, ST/22316/2014-DB UOI v. Kamalakshi Finance Corporation - AIR 1992 SC 711 = 1991 (55) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.), UOI v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation - 1991(55) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.). 4. Personal Hearing in the case was held on 17-12-2020 through video conference, wherein, Shri Harish Chander Suri, Senior Menager (Indirect Tax) of the appellant, appeared for personal hearing through video conference and explained the case in detail and reiterated the submission already made in the grounds of appeal and requested to decide the case at the earliest. 5. I have carefully gone through the case records and submission made in the appeal memorandum as well as oral submission mace at the time of personal hearing. I find that the adjudicating authority has rejected the refund claims and passed the impugned orders in original all dated 23-4-2020 with the remarks only "The refund is time barred and the reply to SCN does not address the issue of delay in filing refund application....