TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 1361
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed assailing an order dated 28th December 2022, being an Order in Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Excise & Service Tax, Raigad (Appeals), whereby the Petitioner's appeal against the Order dated 8th June 2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Division-I, Navi Mumbai, Commissionerate under section 54 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 ("CGST Act") has been rejected. 4. The Petitioner has contended that inadvertently, the Petitioner had filed his Goods and Service Tax returns under his old GST registration number as well as under new GST registration number, as also deposited tax with both the returns. It is the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsferred to old GST No. 27AQEPM6029P1ZA from the Account of the Petitioner and/or; e. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass Orders Directing the Respondents Nos. to 1 3 their officers/agents/Thousand Only) to the Petitioner Account which was mistakenly transferred to old GST No. 27AQEPM6029P1ZA from the Bank Account of the Petitioner, and/or; f. The Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass any other such Order's that this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper. g. The Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the Petitioner to Amend, modify the Writ Petition." 5. Briefly, the facts are : The Petitioner contends that he is a script writer who takes up assignment on contract basis. He had applied for registration under the CGST Act,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eking a refund, as there was a mistake which had occurred in filing of the returns under the cancelled registration number and depositing tax of the said amount. The Assistant Commissioner, CGST & C.Ex., by his order dated 8th June 2022, however, rejected the refund application on the following reasons : "I have carefully gone through the facts of the case. "As per the details available, the taxpayer has filed GSTR-10 and GSTR-3B upto December 2018 and no return has been filed after that. As per Para (6) of Circular No. 125/44/2019 dated 18.11.2019, any refund claim for a tax period may be filed only after furnishing all the returns in form GSTR-1 and form GSTR-3B, which were due to be furnished on or before the date on which the Refund a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... these facts were not taken into consideration by the authorities below, in passing the impugned orders. It is hence submitted that the said orders are contrary to law. Insofar as the impugned order passed by the appellate authority is concerned, the submission is that although the order records that the Appellant had filed the appeal Online on 8th August 2022, the appellate authority has not set out any reasons as to why such online filing of the appeal was not taken into consideration in deciding the issue of limitation. He submits that, although there was an error in submitting copies of some of the documents, that cannot make the filing of the appeal to be invalid and/or not within the limitation when according to him, the same was file....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar amount of Rs. 1,22,220/-. 14. Considering these facts, it was required to be considered by the authorities below that an assessee cannot be expected to file his return and deposit any tax under an invalid cancelled registration number. Further, a legitimate and proper return was filed by the Petitioner under the second (new) registration which was a valid registration. Thus, insofar as the tax deposited under the first (cancelled) registration is concerned, the said registration itself being non-existent, the tax return filed thereunder and any tax deposited under such return, could not have been retained by the respondents as it was not a deposit as per law, it also cannot be a deposit received or any collection of tax under authority ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uments, cannot make the appeal, which was registered on the online portal within the prescribed period of limitation, to be labelled and/or held to be barred by limitation. Once the appeal was filed (albeit under the Online method) within the prescribed limitation, any deficiency in the appeal certainly could be removed later on, as the law does not provide, that the proceeding be strictly filed sans deficiency, and only then, the proceedings would be held to be validly filed. If such proposition is to be recognized as the correct position, it would not only tantamount to a patent absurdity, but also would result in a gross injustice, prejudicially affecting the legitimate rights of persons to a legal remedy(access to justice). Thus, the pa....