Since the refund of ITC on input service and capital goods have been included in net ITC for the purpose of refund by the assessee, they, as per sub-Rule (5) of Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, 2017 as amended vide Board’s Notification No. 26/2018-C.T., dated 13-6-2018 are not entitled to claim refund of ITC.
Section 54 of the CGST Act — Refund — The appellant engaged in activity of mining who extracts soap stone from earth and thereafter sells the soap stone as such or soap stone powder (after grinding of crude soap stone) which attracts GST @ 5%. The appellant have used capital goods and input services. The appellant filed refund claim for ITC accumulated due to inverted tax structure, under Section 54. The Proper Officer, on scrutiny found that the said ITC have been availed on Input Services and Capital Goods which is not included in ‘Net ITC’ for the purpose of refund amount as per Rule 89(5). Accordingly SCNs were issued proposing rejection of refund claims. Thereafter, the adjudicating authority has rejected the claims. Being aggrieved with the impugned orders, the appellant filed present appeal. The appellate authority did not find any infirmity in the impugned Order passed by the Proper Officer in view of various court decisions.
Held that:- The Hon’ble authority rejected the appeal filed by the appellant.
Since the refund of ITC on input service and capital goods have been included in net ITC for the purpose of refund by the assessee, they, as per sub-Rule (5) of Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, 2017 as amended vide Board’s Notification No. 26/2018-C.T., dated 13-6-2018 are not entitled to claim refund of ITC.
Section 54 of the CGST Act — Refund — The appellant engaged in activity of mining who extracts soap stone from earth and thereafter sells the soap stone as such or soap stone powder (after grinding of crude soap stone) which attracts GST @ 5%. The appellant have used capital goods and input services. The appellant filed refund claim for ITC accumulated due to inverted tax structure, under Section 54. The Proper Officer, on scrutiny found that the said ITC have been availed on Input Services and Capital Goods which is not included in ‘Net ITC’ for the purpose of refund amount as per Rule 89(5). Accordingly SCNs were issued proposing rejection of refund claims. Thereafter, the adjudicating authority has rejected the claims. Being aggrieved with the impugned orders, the appellant filed present appeal. The appellate authority did not find any infirmity in the impugned Order passed by the Proper Officer in view of various court decisions.
Held that:- The Hon’ble authority rejected the appeal filed by the appellant.