The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in M/s Shivbhola Filaments Private Limited. v. Assistant Commissioner of CGST [W.P.(C) 9742/2023 dated July 25, 2023] restored the refund application rejected by the Adjudicating Authority and held that the assessee would not be left unheard.
Facts:
M/S Shivbhola Filaments Private Limited (“the Petitioner”) is engaged in the manufacturing of Polypropylene Yarn and Polypropylene narrow woven fabric, which are subject to GST @ 12% @ 5%, respectively.
The Petitioner claimed that raw materials used for manufacturing the product (Granules, Master Batch, Spin Finish Oil) are chargeable to GST @ 18% due to the inverted tax structure, the Petitioner was unable to avail the entire input tax credit paid by it on inputs.
In the aforesaid circumstance, the Petitioner filed refund applications for various tax periods from August, 2018 to March 2019. However, the Petitioner received the notice of rejection of application for refund (“the SCN”) in respect of each refund application filed by him.
The SCN rejected the refund on the ground of mismatch between the GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A.
In response, the Petitioner submitted reconciliation and for each tax period. However, the Revenue Department rejected the refund application and challenged the same before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”). The said appeals have been rejected by a common Order-in-Appeal dated November 18,2021 (“the Impugned Order”) without offering opportunity of being heard.
The Petitioner filed write before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court challenging the Impugned Order.
Issue:
Whether rejection of the refund applications solely on the basis of mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A was justified?
Held:
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 9742/2023 held as under:
- Observed that, the rejection of the Petitioner’s refund applications based on mismatches without providing them with an opportunity to reconcile and the discrepancies is deemed inappropriate and unfair.
- Restored the Petitioner’s refund applications instructed the Adjudicating Authority to reconsider and reassess case.
- Further stated that the Petitioner will be granted the opportunity to present their case.
- Directed the Adjudicating Authority to review the Petitioner’s submissions, explanation, and reconciliation statement and to issue a comprehensive and well-reasoned decision regarding the refund applications.
(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.