The refundable amount shall, instead of being credited to the Fund, be paid to the applicant, if such amount is relatable to refund of inverted duty structure
Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017— Refund -- The petitioner challenging Deficiency Memo dated 15th July, 2020 for the period July 2018 to September 2018 as well as Show Cause Notice dated 15th July, 2020 refund application for the period October 2018 to December 2018 and impugned Refund Sanction Order dated 3rd September, 2020 for the period January 2019 to March 2019 by crediting the refund claimed to the consumer welfare fund instead of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted that despite all documents being available in the records of the respondents, they are asking for them to be furnished once again. The petitioner submitted that the impugned Deficiency Memo and Show Cause Notice are ex-facie nullity since reliance for their issuance is placed on the Circular no.125/44/2019-GST dated 18th November, 2019. The deficiency Memo was issued after a period of around 90 days, whereas under Sub-rule 2 and 3 of Rule 90, it needs to be issued within a mandatory period of 15 days. The petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in Jian International Vs. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax, W.P. (C) 4205/2020.And submitted that as per clause (b) of Section 54(8), where a refund is claimed on account of inverted duty structure, the refundable amount instead of being credited to the consumer welfare fund has to be paid to the applicant.
Held that:-The Hon’ble High Court directed the petitioner to take all its pleas in the replies to the show cause notice, deficiency memo and representation seeking credit of refund in his account. And directed that the replies and representations filed by the petitioner shall not be rejected/dismissed on the ground of limitation.
The refundable amount shall, instead of being credited to the Fund, be paid to the applicant, if such amount is relatable to refund of inverted duty structure
Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017— Refund -- The petitioner challenging Deficiency Memo dated 15th July, 2020 for the period July 2018 to September 2018 as well as Show Cause Notice dated 15th July, 2020 refund application for the period October 2018 to December 2018 and impugned Refund Sanction Order dated 3rd September, 2020 for the period January 2019 to March 2019 by crediting the refund claimed to the consumer welfare fund instead of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted that despite all documents being available in the records of the respondents, they are asking for them to be furnished once again. The petitioner submitted that the impugned Deficiency Memo and Show Cause Notice are ex-facie nullity since reliance for their issuance is placed on the Circular no.125/44/2019-GST dated 18th November, 2019. The deficiency Memo was issued after a period of around 90 days, whereas under Sub-rule 2 and 3 of Rule 90, it needs to be issued within a mandatory period of 15 days. The petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in Jian International Vs. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax, W.P. (C) 4205/2020.And submitted that as per clause (b) of Section 54(8), where a refund is claimed on account of inverted duty structure, the refundable amount instead of being credited to the consumer welfare fund has to be paid to the applicant.
Held that:-The Hon’ble High Court directed the petitioner to take all its pleas in the replies to the show cause notice, deficiency memo and representation seeking credit of refund in his account. And directed that the replies and representations filed by the petitioner shall not be rejected/dismissed on the ground of limitation.