2026 (6) TMI 687

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, who takes notice on behalf of the respondent. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, on account of the available credit, the petitioner claimed the benefit of input tax and sought a refund of Rs. 4,75,859/-, which was originally ordered. However, on appeal by the Revenue to the Appellate Authority, the same was reversed. 4. He would further submit that the petitioner has already decided to file a second appeal before the appropriate authority. While the appeal was being uploaded, even though the petitioner had already deposited the 10% amount, the appeal was not taken on file due to glitches in the portal. In the interregnum, the impugned or....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ow cause notice in FORM GST RFD-08, under section 54 of the CGST Act, read with section 73 or 74 of the CGST Act, requiring the applicant to show cause as to why: (a) the refund amount corresponding to the ineligible ITC should not be rejected as per the relevant provisions of the law; and (b) the amount of ineligible ITC should not be recovered as wrongly availed ITC under section 73 or section 74 of the CGST Act, as the case may be, along with interest and penalty, if any. 21. The above notice shall be adjudicated following the principles of natural justice and an order shall be issued, in FORM GST RFD-06, under section 54 of the CGST Act, read with section 73 or section 74 of the CGST Act, as the case may be. I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as the case may be. 10. Therefore, in a case of rejection of a refund, which would include the appellate stage as well, the authorities must resort to proceedings under Section 73 or 74 of the Act, as the case may be, in accordance with Clauses 20 and 21 of the said circular. Clause 22 of the circular, however, states that in cases where a claim for refund is rejected for reasons other than the ineligibility of credit, an order under Section 73 or 74 of the Act, as the case may be, need not be issued. 11. In the present case, even as per the parties' submissions, it is apparent that the respondent is claiming ineligibility of credit, whereas the petitioner contends that the credit is available and is therefore preferring this second a....