2025 (8) TMI 404

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 1. By the impugned order the application filed by the petitioner claiming refund of excess CGST claimed has been declined. The appellate authority while rejecting the claim has opined as under: "From above legal provisions I observed that the appellant is eligible for a refund of an amount of Rs. 12,84,595/- (CGST) on account of "Tax paid on intra-state supply later held to be inter-state supp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... petitioner. Either which ways this was a technical error and petitioner ought not to have been non suited without adverting to the merits of the claim. 3. Per contra Shri Parv Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the refund claims which are not in proper format cannot be processed and hence there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the competent authority. By failing to determine the controversy on merits, and by declining the claim on the aforesaid technicality the appellate authority has erred in law. 6. The second ground resided in the impugned order is that the petitioner had failed to "adduce any evidence to buttress their claims". The aforesaid finding is in excess of the show cause notice issued to the petitioner i....