The appellant had sufficient time to file the revised GST TRAN-1 declaration as per provisions of CGST Rules supra, however, they deliberately chose not to avail such statutory remedy with a specific intention to encash the Cenvat credit, they filed the refund claim under Section 142(9)(b) of the CGST Act, the refund in question is not admissible to them.
Section 142 of the CGST Act, 2017— Refund for Revising the Return – The appellant filed refund claim under the provisions of Section 142(9)(b) of Act, on the ground that the appellant had filed original ER-1 return for the month of June, 2017 on 10.07.2017 and carried forward an amount of Rs. 1,71,22,659/- of Cenvat credit in Form TRAN-1. They had subsequently filed revised ER-1 return for the said month on 31.07.2017 and revised the carried forward the Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,73,16,625/-.Therefore, under Section 142(9)(b) , the appellant filed the refund claim of Rs. 1,93,866/- which was not carried forward in TRAN-1. The Adjudicating authority has rejected the said claim on the grounds that the appellant has not availed the statutory remedy as available under Rule 120A, vide which the appellant could have filed revised declaration in form GST TRAN-1. The appellant submitted that additional Cenvat credit found to be admissible pursuant to revision of returns furnished under the existing law is liable be refunded in cash and they had revised return within the time limit prescribed under Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The authority observed that though the provisions of Rule 120A specifically allows the appellant to file a revised GST TRAN-1 once within ninety days of the appointed day, which has been further extended till 27th December, 2017 vide CBEC order dated 15.11.2017, the appellant have not availed to avail such facility and instead, they filed a refund claim, which indicated the intention of getting cash of such credit by way of refund by ignoring the statutory provision.
Held that:- The Hon’ble Authority rejected the appeal filed by the appellant.