A circular cannot stand in the way of a benefit offered under a statutory scheme. Refund application cannot be rejected on the ground that excess claim of duty draw back has been availed
Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017- Refund – The petitioner challenged the appellate orders dated 12.05.2020 rejecting the refund claimed by the petitioner on the ground that there has been an excess claim of duty draw back by the petitioner, as per which, they have renounced their claim for ITC. The court observed that in terms of Section 54(3), the petitioner is entitled to one or the other of two benefits, i) duty draw back or ii) Input Tax Credit. Thus, an option has been extended to an assessee engaged in zero rated sale to either claim the benefit of duty drawback or the benefit of refund of ITC. That is why, in the present case, the petitioner, for the month of July, 2017 has opted to stick with the claim of duty draw back seeing as the amount of drawback is higher than the ITC for the months of August and September, 2017. The court observed that the claim of refund to be in order.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court set aside the orders of the appellate authority and directed the authority to refund the sanctioned amounts within a period of six (6) weeks.
A circular cannot stand in the way of a benefit offered under a statutory scheme. Refund application cannot be rejected on the ground that excess claim of duty draw back has been availed
Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017- Refund – The petitioner challenged the appellate orders dated 12.05.2020 rejecting the refund claimed by the petitioner on the ground that there has been an excess claim of duty draw back by the petitioner, as per which, they have renounced their claim for ITC. The court observed that in terms of Section 54(3), the petitioner is entitled to one or the other of two benefits, i) duty draw back or ii) Input Tax Credit. Thus, an option has been extended to an assessee engaged in zero rated sale to either claim the benefit of duty drawback or the benefit of refund of ITC. That is why, in the present case, the petitioner, for the month of July, 2017 has opted to stick with the claim of duty draw back seeing as the amount of drawback is higher than the ITC for the months of August and September, 2017. The court observed that the claim of refund to be in order.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court set aside the orders of the appellate authority and directed the authority to refund the sanctioned amounts within a period of six (6) weeks.