TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 1301
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Through: Mr. Aseem Mehrotra, Adv. For the Respondents Through: Mr. R. Ramachandran, Senior Standing Counsel. VIBHU BAKHRU, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an Order dated 05.08.2021, passed by the Adjudicating Authority, rejecting the petitioner's application for refund of the Input Tax Credit (hereafter 'ITC') amounting to Rs.76,76,106/- (CGST - Rs.38,38,053/-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r/s have been reported as Non-Existent by the respective jurisdictional CGST authorities. 2. Mismatch in invoice and FOB values. 4. The petitioner responded to the said Show Cause Notice enclosing therewith details of all the vendors; their respective GSTIN; and the particulars of the invoices. 5. The petitioner, inter alia, claimed that the purchases made were genuine from dealers that were....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he other suppliers, the details of which were provided by the petitioner. 10. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. However, as noted above, the petitioner's appeal was rejected by the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 31.05.2022. 11. The said impugned order indicates that the Appellate Authority had considered the details of invoices ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led. The petitioner voluntarily deposited the amount of Rs.21,76,260/-, being the amount of refund claimed in respect of the two invoices of Siddhi Impex, in its electronic credit ledger. 14. Mr. Aseem Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, does not seek to question the decision of the Adjudicating Authority or the Appellate Authority in rejecting the petitioner's claim for refun....