The refund application of the appellant is barred by the time limitation in terms of Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, this authority does not find any infirmity in the rejection of refund order passed by the adjudicating authority.
Section 54 of the CGST Act — Refund — The appellant engaged in business of trading in computer products, and also undertaking the maintenance contract for computer and computer related products. The appellant filed refund application for excess payment made mistakenly while filing the GSTR-3B for the period of July, 2017 to March, 2018 under Section 54 on 15-5-2020. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim filed by the appellant and passed the impugned order on 11-5-2020 with remarks "Refund is rejected for being time. Being aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellant filed appeal on 27-8-2020. The appellate authority observed that the instant refund application was filed by the appellant on the ground of excess tax payment made by him and it arised due to not reporting of credit note in GSTR-3B mistakenly and wrongly/erroneously paid the tax on cancelled invoices during the period 2017-18 by filing of GSTR-3B. Other remedies were available in the Section 34(2) and Section 39(9) but the appellant failed to opt the same and applied the instant refund application on 15-5- 2020. The appellant contended that Section 54 of the Act is silent regarding time for application of refund where the assessee paid excess payment by mistake therefore he placed reliance on the Limitation Act, 1963. There is a settled law that if the statutory provisions are available in the relevant Act, there is no need to draw the inference by applying/interpreting the other statutory provision.
Held that:- The Hon’ble authority rejected the appeal filed by the appellant.
The refund application of the appellant is barred by the time limitation in terms of Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, this authority does not find any infirmity in the rejection of refund order passed by the adjudicating authority.
Section 54 of the CGST Act — Refund — The appellant engaged in business of trading in computer products, and also undertaking the maintenance contract for computer and computer related products. The appellant filed refund application for excess payment made mistakenly while filing the GSTR-3B for the period of July, 2017 to March, 2018 under Section 54 on 15-5-2020. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim filed by the appellant and passed the impugned order on 11-5-2020 with remarks "Refund is rejected for being time. Being aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellant filed appeal on 27-8-2020. The appellate authority observed that the instant refund application was filed by the appellant on the ground of excess tax payment made by him and it arised due to not reporting of credit note in GSTR-3B mistakenly and wrongly/erroneously paid the tax on cancelled invoices during the period 2017-18 by filing of GSTR-3B. Other remedies were available in the Section 34(2) and Section 39(9) but the appellant failed to opt the same and applied the instant refund application on 15-5- 2020. The appellant contended that Section 54 of the Act is silent regarding time for application of refund where the assessee paid excess payment by mistake therefore he placed reliance on the Limitation Act, 1963. There is a settled law that if the statutory provisions are available in the relevant Act, there is no need to draw the inference by applying/interpreting the other statutory provision.
Held that:- The Hon’ble authority rejected the appeal filed by the appellant.