2023 (5) TMI 96

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Bengaluru. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in providing taxable service under the category of "Information Technology Software", during the relevant period. They have filed 3 refund claims for the quarters: April 2017 to June 2017 for Rs.13,55,153/-; October 2016 to December 2016 for Rs.12,44,223/- and January 2017 to March 2017 for Rs.11,43,244/- on different dates after 01/07/2017. Show-cause notices were issued to the appellants proposing rejection of the said refund claims on the ground that they have not complied with the provisions of the Notification No.27/2012-CE(NT) dt. 18/06/2012 issued under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and in contravention of Section 142(3) of CGST Act, 201....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s.37,42,620/- was not debited from their input tax credit ledger but the same was later shown as debited in their December, 2017 form GSTR-3B Returns filed under CGST Rules. He has submitted that therefore, they have substantially complied with the condition of debit of accumulated cenvat credit even though in the form of IGST as stipulated under Notification No.27/2012-CE(NT). Therefore, denial of cash refund of the accumulated cenvat credit for the respective quarters is incorrect in law. He has submitted that the authorities below have failed to follow the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI and others [2020(32) GSTL 726 (P&H)] and the judgements of the Tribunal ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ermination is: in the facts of the case, whether the appellants are entitled to cash refund of accumulated cenvat credit pertain to the quarters April 2017 to June 2017; October 2016 to December 2016 and January 2017 to March 2017; the claims have been filed during the CGST regime i.e. after 01/07/2017. It is not in dispute that all the cash refund claims of accumulated credit have been filed during July and August, 2017 i.e. after 01/07/2017. Also, it is not in dispute that the appellant had transitioned from the old CENVAT credit into input tax credit w.e.f. 01/07/2017 and shown the closing balance of CENVAT credit as on 30/06/2017 being the opening balance of Input Tax Credit under IGST as on 01/07/2017. In the scenario, it needs to be a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....entire amount of cenvat credit laying in balance as on 30/06/2017 have been transitioned to CGST regime and shown as input tax credit opening balance in their books of account as on 01/07/2017. He submits that however, in the December 2017 return under the relevant CGST rules, the input tax credit of equivalent amount claimed as refund have been debited; therefore they have complied with the provisions of Notification No.27/2012-CE(NT). I do not find merit in the said contention of the learned consultant for the appellant inasmuch as once the appellant has opted to make a transition from the existing cenvat credit into input tax credit, the second proviso to Section 142(3) of CGST Act, 2017 comes into play. In absence of any specific provis....