It is an established Law that an adverse Order seeking to impose a demand shall not be passed without considering the contra stand of the aggrieved. The appellant also has canvassed substantial submissions to reinforce their case against rejection of refund that has not been presented before the respondent. Therefore, it to be legal and proper to quash the impugned Order and direct the respondent to pass an Order afresh as per Law.
Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Refund — The appellant engaged in providing services to its overseas customers. The appellants filed a refund application for the month of May, 2018 and received provisional refund to the tune of Rs.3,06,733/-. The respondent had issued a notice to Show Cause seeking to hold the refund sanctioned as erroneous and consequently demanded the same along with applicable interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the impugned Order, the appellant filed an appeal. The authority observed that crux of the dispute lies in calculating the turnover of zero rated supply of services. The claim has been filed for the period May, 2018, the 'relevant period' in this case has to be considered as May, 2018. The respondent on the logic that since the proceeds in foreign currency for the exports made in the month of May, 2018 has been received only during January, 2019, has come to the conclusion that no proceeds in foreign currency has been received in the month of May, 2018 and therefore determined the turnover of zero rated supply of services as zero and thereby amount eligible for sanction is also zero.
Held that:- The Hon’ble authority quashed the impugned Order dated 5-3-2020 and directed the respondent to pass afresh a speaking Order on merits, by giving an opportunity to the appellant to furnish their reply and accord a hearing.
It is an established Law that an adverse Order seeking to impose a demand shall not be passed without considering the contra stand of the aggrieved. The appellant also has canvassed substantial submissions to reinforce their case against rejection of refund that has not been presented before the respondent. Therefore, it to be legal and proper to quash the impugned Order and direct the respondent to pass an Order afresh as per Law.
Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Refund — The appellant engaged in providing services to its overseas customers. The appellants filed a refund application for the month of May, 2018 and received provisional refund to the tune of Rs.3,06,733/-. The respondent had issued a notice to Show Cause seeking to hold the refund sanctioned as erroneous and consequently demanded the same along with applicable interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the impugned Order, the appellant filed an appeal. The authority observed that crux of the dispute lies in calculating the turnover of zero rated supply of services. The claim has been filed for the period May, 2018, the 'relevant period' in this case has to be considered as May, 2018. The respondent on the logic that since the proceeds in foreign currency for the exports made in the month of May, 2018 has been received only during January, 2019, has come to the conclusion that no proceeds in foreign currency has been received in the month of May, 2018 and therefore determined the turnover of zero rated supply of services as zero and thereby amount eligible for sanction is also zero.
Held that:- The Hon’ble authority quashed the impugned Order dated 5-3-2020 and directed the respondent to pass afresh a speaking Order on merits, by giving an opportunity to the appellant to furnish their reply and accord a hearing.