TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 495
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 25.11.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner CGST Appeals-II (the Appellate Authority), whereby the petitioner's appeal against an order dated 29.04.2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority was rejected. 2. In addition, the petitioner impugns the validity of Rule 90(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (hereafter 'the Rules'). The petitioner also assails Paragraph 12 of Circular No. 125/44/2019 dated 18.11.2019 as being ultra vires Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter 'the CGST Act'). 3. The petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the denial of his request for refund of GST amounting to Rs.2,63,98,462/-. 4. The petitioner c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....D 01) on 17.01.2020 seeking refund of the excess payment of tax amounting to Rs.2,63,98,462/-. 9. The Adjudicating Officer issued a Deficiency Memo dated 31.01.2020 (in Form GST RFD 03) seeking certain other documents. 10. The said Deficiency Memo is set out below: FORM-GST-RFD-03 [See rule 90(3)] Deficiency Memo To 07AABCB5576G1ZN (GSTIN/ UIN/ Temporary ID) M/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited H.C MATHUR LANE, JANPATH NEW DELHI - 110001. Subject: Refund Application Reference No. (ARN) AA070120034449K Dated 17.01.2020. Sir/Madam, This has reference to your above mentioned application electronically filed vide above mentioned ARN under section 54 of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the petitioner on 10.02.2020 (in Form GST RFD 01) was treated as the application for refund. Since the same was beyond the period of two years from the date of filing the return (which was filed on 22.01.2018), the petitioner was denied its claim for refund of excess tax. 16. The petitioner appealed the said order before the Appellate Authority, which was rejected by the impugned order 25.11.2021. The Appellate Authority upheld the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. 17. The reasons stated by the Appellate Authority in the impugned order indicates that the Appellate Authority had proceeded on the basis that the petitioner had filed the first online refund claim along with documents on 10.02.2020. 18. The petitioner's appl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vidences in Annexure 1 in FORM GST RFD-01, as applicable, to establish that a refund is due to the applicant, namely:- xxxx xxxx xxxx (k) a statement showing the details of the amount of claim on account of excess payment of tax; (l) a declaration to the effect that the incidence of tax, interest or any other amount claimed as refund has not been passed on to any other person, in a case where the amount of refund claimed does not exceed two lakh rupees: PROVIDED that a declaration is not required to be furnished in respect of the cases covered under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) or clause (f) of sub-section (8) of section 54; (m) a Certificate in Annexure 2 of FORM GST RFD-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... open for the respondents to seek any documents required for clarification relating to the refund claim made by a taxpayer, however, the taxpayer's application cannot be considered as deficient if it was duly accompanied by the documents prescribed under Rule 89(2). 26. The said contention is merited. However, the said contention does not arise in the facts of the present case as the Appellate Authority has not rejected the petitioner's appeal on the ground that its application filed on 17.01.2020 was deficient; it has done so on an erroneous assumption that it was filed physically and not online. 27. It is pointed out that the Adjudicating Authority had proceeded on the basis that it had communicated the deficiencies in Form GST RFD ....