TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 50
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ZY0804200359204, dated 18-4-2020 April, 2018 Rs. 18,25,626/- 2 C. No. APPL/JPR/CGST/ AL/70/VIII/20/ ZN0804200359259, dated 18-4-2020 May, 2018 Rs. 33,18,636/- 3 C. No. APPL/JPR/CGST/ AL/71/VIII/20/ ZV0807200009552, dated 1-7-2020 June, 2018 Rs. 37,86,650/- 4 C. No. APPL/JPR/CGST/ AL/72/VIII/20/ ZX0807200009541, dated 1-7-2020 July, 2018 Rs. 30,24,403/- 2. Brief facts of the case : 2.1 The appellant having GSTIN No. 08AAACA8504GlZX is engaged in the manufacture and supply of Iron casting has filed refund claims under Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017 for the period and amount mentioned in column (4) & (5) in Para 1 above under category of 'Any Other' in respect of duty paid on the supply of goods to SEZ units. 2.2 On examination of refund claims and documents uploaded with the refund claims submitted in Form RFD-01s, details of registration, the adjudicating authority observed that Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process was initiated against M/s. Castex Technologies Limited, SPA-1195, Phase-IV, RIICO Industrial Area, Bhiwadi and by an order, the Hon'ble NCLT vide order dated 2-8-2018 allowed the taxpayer to file monthly GSTR-3B physically. By filing th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding para and involved in the orders as were reflected on the portal could not be downloaded/retrieved. In view of the said state of affairs, where copy of SCN is not available, the reasons mentioned in the impugned Order are made on the basis for grounds taken in the Appeal. * that, as per Para 3 of the impugned Order uploaded on the GST portal, it is apparent that the refund claims filed by the appellant were rejected mainly for the reasons that there is no payment of tax in Government Account by the appellants. It has further been held that the taxpayer/appellant did not submit their reply to the Show Cause Notice as also did not sought any adjournment for submission of reply and have even not attended the personal hearing. * that the impugned Order is against the Law as the same violates the principles of natural justice in the light of following submissions : * that, it is fact on record that the appellants filed the refund claim on 19-3-2020, 20-3-2020 & 11-6-2020 and the same was rejected vide Order dated 18-4-2020 and 1-7-2020 as per the Impugned Order. Show Cause Notices were issued wherein it is stated that the appellants have neither replied nor sought extension. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mail, however no such option was ever explored especially where the provision of Section 75 of CGST Act, 2017, three hearings could have been granted whereas none other than the mentioned in the SCN, has ever been granted. Relevant provisions of Section 75 of CGST Act, 2017are reproduced as under : Section 75 of CGST Act, 2017 Section 75. General provisions relating to determination of tax. - (1) to (3) ... (4) An opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person. (5) The proper officer shall, if sufficient cause is shown by the person chargeable with tax, grant time to the said person and adjourn the hearing for reasons to be recorded in writing : Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted for more than three times to a person during the proceedings. It is apparent from the above that in case any adverse decision is contemplated against any person, the person is entitled for hearing which can be adjourned for three times whereas, in the present case, firstly, the date of hearing as is presumed to be ment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are well accepted and mentioned in the order but the same was never appreciated and deviating from the same, miscarriage of justice has been done. Relevant para of the impugned Order is reproduced as under : On examination of the refund claims and documents uploaded with the refund applications submitted in the Form RFD-01s, details of registration, it has been observed that Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process was initiated against M/s. Castex Technologies Ltd., Bhiwadi and by an Order, the Hon'ble NCLT appointed IPR with effect from 22-12-2017. Subsequently, the NCLT vide order dated 2-8-2018 allowed the taxpayer to file monthly GSTR-3B physically. By filing the GSTR-3B physically instead on GST Portal, the GST liabilities paid/deposited/credited by the taxpayer remain lying in the Electronic Cash Ledger or Electronic Credit Ledger of the taxpayer available on GST Portal as same are not debited for credit in Government. Account due to non-filing of 3B electronically, which is resulted in not discharge of tax liabilities. The provisions of Section 54(1) of CGST Act, 2017 allows the refund of amount, if any paid. Accordingly, M/s. Castex Technologies Ltd., Bhiwadi vide show c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant in their appeal memo as well as also oral submission at the time of personal hearing and accordingly I proceed for deciding the appeal. 7. I find that the adjudicating Authority has rejected the refund claim of the appellant which was filed on account of duty paid on supply of goods to SEZ units. The Adjudicating Authority has stated the following reason in RFD-08 as well as RFD-06. "that the provisions of Section 54(1) of CGST Act, 2017 only allows the refund claims of any amount paid on account of tax, interest, penalty etc., In the impugned case, the taxpayer has filed the GSTR-3B monthly return physically and by non-filing of 3B electronically on common portal, the GST liabilities paid/deposited/credited by the taxpayer remain lying in the Electronic Cash Ledger or Electronic Credit Ledger of the taxpayer available on GST portal and are not credit in Govt. Account, which is resulted in not discharge of tax liabilities. Since there is no payment of tax in Govt. Account, the refund of tax related to supply of Goods to SEZ Units is liable to be rejected". Further, the adjudicating authority has also stated that neither reply to the show cause notice has been subm....