Refund of input services is not includible in the “Net ITC” as explained in the clause under Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules, as amended. There is no infirmity in rejection of the refund.
Section 54 of the CGST Act — Refund — The appellant is engaged in various domains of media sector including Sale of Newspaper, Service of sale of space or time slot for advertisement in print and other modes of media as well. The appellant has filed refund application on 15-5-2020 under Section 54 in respect of unutilized Input Tax Credit of Rs. 23,62,917/- for the month of June, 2019 on account of ITC accumulated due to Inverted Tax Structure. The Proper Officer issued SCN dated 24-5-2020 stating that the refund claim was liable to be rejected on the ground of Wrong ITC claim and found that ITC (as availed) of Input Services and Capital Goods, should not be included in ‘Net ITC’ for the purpose of refund amount as per Rule 89(5) of Rules. Thereafter, the adjudicating authority has passed the Order dated 15-6-2020 rejecting the refund claim. Being aggrieved with the impugned orders, the appellant filed appeal on the ground that the since the date for PH was on a Government holiday, the appellant tried to communicate and it was informed that the date has been wrongly punched as 6-6-2020 instead of 8-6-2020. The appellant filed an adjournment to the SCN on GST portal for at-least 7days so that the counsel may compile the relevant documents and attend the hearing. Seven days period ended on 15-6-2020 and the appellant submitted reply on 15.06.2020 but the order was issued on the same day. The authority observed that that the sufficient time was available with the appellant to file reply in the matter if he intended to do so. Therefore, the adjudicating authority has passed the impugned order after providing opportune time to file reply. Further, refund of input services is not includible in the “Net ITC” as explained in the clause under Rule 89(5). The appellant has not submitted any segregated documents relating to input to the proper officer in spite of providing sufficient opportunities.
Held that:- The Hon’ble authority rejected the appeal filed by the appellant.
Refund of input services is not includible in the “Net ITC” as explained in the clause under Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules, as amended. There is no infirmity in rejection of the refund.
Section 54 of the CGST Act — Refund — The appellant is engaged in various domains of media sector including Sale of Newspaper, Service of sale of space or time slot for advertisement in print and other modes of media as well. The appellant has filed refund application on 15-5-2020 under Section 54 in respect of unutilized Input Tax Credit of Rs. 23,62,917/- for the month of June, 2019 on account of ITC accumulated due to Inverted Tax Structure. The Proper Officer issued SCN dated 24-5-2020 stating that the refund claim was liable to be rejected on the ground of Wrong ITC claim and found that ITC (as availed) of Input Services and Capital Goods, should not be included in ‘Net ITC’ for the purpose of refund amount as per Rule 89(5) of Rules. Thereafter, the adjudicating authority has passed the Order dated 15-6-2020 rejecting the refund claim. Being aggrieved with the impugned orders, the appellant filed appeal on the ground that the since the date for PH was on a Government holiday, the appellant tried to communicate and it was informed that the date has been wrongly punched as 6-6-2020 instead of 8-6-2020. The appellant filed an adjournment to the SCN on GST portal for at-least 7days so that the counsel may compile the relevant documents and attend the hearing. Seven days period ended on 15-6-2020 and the appellant submitted reply on 15.06.2020 but the order was issued on the same day. The authority observed that that the sufficient time was available with the appellant to file reply in the matter if he intended to do so. Therefore, the adjudicating authority has passed the impugned order after providing opportune time to file reply. Further, refund of input services is not includible in the “Net ITC” as explained in the clause under Rule 89(5). The appellant has not submitted any segregated documents relating to input to the proper officer in spite of providing sufficient opportunities.
Held that:- The Hon’ble authority rejected the appeal filed by the appellant.