The rejection of the refund application of the appellant on the time barred ground is correct and proper. Hence I do not find any infirmity in the impugned Orders passed by the Proper Officer/Adjudicating Authority.
Section 54 of the CGST Act — Refund — The appellant while filing the GSTR-3B return for the month of September, 2017 and October, 2017 has mistakenly shown excess output tax liability of IGST, resulting in excess payment of IGST. The appellant has filed refund applications on 11-2-2020 on GST portal under Section 54 of the Act. The Proper Officer issued SCN in Form of GST-RFD-08, dated 2-3-2020 proposing therein rejection of refund claims on the ground of limitation. The Adjudicating Authority passed the Orders-in-Original dated 6-4-2020 and rejected both the refund claims filed by the appellant on the ground of time bar issue. Being aggrieved with the impugned orders, the appellant filed appeals on the ground that the amount deposited mistakenly as IGST, though not required to be paid is in the nature of pre-deposit and not tax, therefore, limitation is not applicable. The authority observed that any kind of refund is governed by Section 54 read with Rule 89 of Rules, 2017, and procedure for filing of refund application has been given in the said section and rules only. The rejection of the refund application of the appellant on the time barred ground is correct and proper.
Held that:- The Hon’ble authority rejected both the appeals filed by the appellant.
The rejection of the refund application of the appellant on the time barred ground is correct and proper. Hence I do not find any infirmity in the impugned Orders passed by the Proper Officer/Adjudicating Authority.
Section 54 of the CGST Act — Refund — The appellant while filing the GSTR-3B return for the month of September, 2017 and October, 2017 has mistakenly shown excess output tax liability of IGST, resulting in excess payment of IGST. The appellant has filed refund applications on 11-2-2020 on GST portal under Section 54 of the Act. The Proper Officer issued SCN in Form of GST-RFD-08, dated 2-3-2020 proposing therein rejection of refund claims on the ground of limitation. The Adjudicating Authority passed the Orders-in-Original dated 6-4-2020 and rejected both the refund claims filed by the appellant on the ground of time bar issue. Being aggrieved with the impugned orders, the appellant filed appeals on the ground that the amount deposited mistakenly as IGST, though not required to be paid is in the nature of pre-deposit and not tax, therefore, limitation is not applicable. The authority observed that any kind of refund is governed by Section 54 read with Rule 89 of Rules, 2017, and procedure for filing of refund application has been given in the said section and rules only. The rejection of the refund application of the appellant on the time barred ground is correct and proper.
Held that:- The Hon’ble authority rejected both the appeals filed by the appellant.