The appellant has himself forfeited his right to file the appeal before Appellate Authority by submitting an undertaking before the adjudicating authority/proper officer as per explanation given under Rule 93 (2) of CGST Rules. Therefore, the instant appeal is non maintainable.
Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Refund — The appellant filed a refund application for refund vide GST-RFD-01 dated 24.12.2019 under Section 54(1) read with Rule 89. The adjudicating authority has issued a SCN in Form GST RFD-08 on 21.01.2020 with reason Wrong ITC claim and given remark: “Claimant has not uploaded/provided ITC accumulation documents, hence unable to verify ITC. Thereafter, the adjudicating authority has passed the order in original on 10.02.2020 with the Remarks: "No reply of Show Cause Notice has been received till now, therefore it assumed that claimant has nothing to submit reply in support of the claim and refund found inadmissible. Being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 10.02.2020, the appellant has filed the appeal on 27.11.2020, the delay of 201 days from the normal period, the reason for delay is given that certified copy of impugned order for refund rejection was received on 28.08.2020. The authority observed that the claimant vide letter dated 16.03.2020 has submitted an undertaking as per Rule 93(2) of CGST Rules, 2017 before the assessing authority that they would not go for appeal against the refund order and requested to re-credit of rejected amount. Accordingly, rejected refund amount re-credited in the ITC ledger of the claimant through PMT-03. Thus, the appellant has forfeited his right to file the appeal before Appellate Authority by submitting an undertaking
Held that:- The Hon’ble authority rejected the appeal as the same is not maintainable.
The appellant has himself forfeited his right to file the appeal before Appellate Authority by submitting an undertaking before the adjudicating authority/proper officer as per explanation given under Rule 93 (2) of CGST Rules. Therefore, the instant appeal is non maintainable.
Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Refund — The appellant filed a refund application for refund vide GST-RFD-01 dated 24.12.2019 under Section 54(1) read with Rule 89. The adjudicating authority has issued a SCN in Form GST RFD-08 on 21.01.2020 with reason Wrong ITC claim and given remark: “Claimant has not uploaded/provided ITC accumulation documents, hence unable to verify ITC. Thereafter, the adjudicating authority has passed the order in original on 10.02.2020 with the Remarks: "No reply of Show Cause Notice has been received till now, therefore it assumed that claimant has nothing to submit reply in support of the claim and refund found inadmissible. Being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 10.02.2020, the appellant has filed the appeal on 27.11.2020, the delay of 201 days from the normal period, the reason for delay is given that certified copy of impugned order for refund rejection was received on 28.08.2020. The authority observed that the claimant vide letter dated 16.03.2020 has submitted an undertaking as per Rule 93(2) of CGST Rules, 2017 before the assessing authority that they would not go for appeal against the refund order and requested to re-credit of rejected amount. Accordingly, rejected refund amount re-credited in the ITC ledger of the claimant through PMT-03. Thus, the appellant has forfeited his right to file the appeal before Appellate Authority by submitting an undertaking
Held that:- The Hon’ble authority rejected the appeal as the same is not maintainable.