The impugned order to the extent of not allowing the re-credit of the amount already debited by the appellant, to the extent of rejection without allowing the proper opportunity to present his case is not legally correct
Section 54 of the CGST Act — Refund — The appellant filed refund application for refund of unutilized ITC for the month of July 2017, August, 2017, September, 2017, October, 2017 and November, 2017 separately. The adjudicating authority vide impugned order has rejected the refund claim on the ground that the appellant has not provided ITC invoice/documents and held the appellant not eligible for re-credit of the amount. The appellant submitted that Rule 93 as well as Circular 17/17/2017 stated that whenever any refund is rejected by the proper officer then he has to make necessary arrangement by filling Form PMT-03 and RFD-01B to grant the re-credit of rejected amount to them. The appellate authority observed that the main issue involved is that whether the re-credit of ITC of inputs was to be allowed to the extent, the refund claims were rejected as the appellant had already debited the entire ITC of inputs in their electronic ledger. The authority observed that in terms of various provisions of law, the adjudicating authority was required to allow the re-credit of the amount already debited to the extent of rejection, but the adjudicating authority has not allowed the re-credit. The above provisions do not stipulate that in the case of non submission of invoices etc., the re-credit should not be allowed.
Held that:- The Hon’ble authority set aside the impugned orders and directed the adjudicating authority to allow the appellant to present his case regarding not allowing re-credit of the amount already debited to the extent of rejection.
The impugned order to the extent of not allowing the re-credit of the amount already debited by the appellant, to the extent of rejection without allowing the proper opportunity to present his case is not legally correct
Section 54 of the CGST Act — Refund — The appellant filed refund application for refund of unutilized ITC for the month of July 2017, August, 2017, September, 2017, October, 2017 and November, 2017 separately. The adjudicating authority vide impugned order has rejected the refund claim on the ground that the appellant has not provided ITC invoice/documents and held the appellant not eligible for re-credit of the amount. The appellant submitted that Rule 93 as well as Circular 17/17/2017 stated that whenever any refund is rejected by the proper officer then he has to make necessary arrangement by filling Form PMT-03 and RFD-01B to grant the re-credit of rejected amount to them. The appellate authority observed that the main issue involved is that whether the re-credit of ITC of inputs was to be allowed to the extent, the refund claims were rejected as the appellant had already debited the entire ITC of inputs in their electronic ledger. The authority observed that in terms of various provisions of law, the adjudicating authority was required to allow the re-credit of the amount already debited to the extent of rejection, but the adjudicating authority has not allowed the re-credit. The above provisions do not stipulate that in the case of non submission of invoices etc., the re-credit should not be allowed.
Held that:- The Hon’ble authority set aside the impugned orders and directed the adjudicating authority to allow the appellant to present his case regarding not allowing re-credit of the amount already debited to the extent of rejection.