Page 85 - GSTL_16 April 2020_Vol 35_Part 3

2020 ] GLOBAL ANALYTICS INDIA PVT. LTD. v. COMMR. OF GST & C. EX., CHENNAI 299
58/32/2018-G.S.T., dated 4-9-2018 wherein the Board itself had clarified that the
reversal of credit in GSTR-3B amounts to non-availment of credit. He relied on
the decision of the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of
Service Tax, Noida v. Kiwi Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2018 (2) T.M.I.
689 - CESTAT Allahabad and also relied on the following orders of the Tribunal :
(i) Inductoterm Group Pune P. Ltd. v. C.S.T., Pune-I - 2017 (8) T.M.I. 218 -
CESTAT, Mumbai;
(ii) Sandoz Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Belapur - 2015 (10) T.M.I. 882 - CESTAT,
Mumbai = 2015 (325) E.L.T. 387 (Tribunal);
(iii) Kopran Ltd. v. C.C.E., Mumbai-II - 2016 (11) T.M.I. 419 - CESTAT,
Mumbai;
(iv) Kellogg and Andelson Management Service Pvt. Ltd. v. C.S.T., Chennai -
2018-TIOL-1774-CESTAT-MAD.
5. Per contra, Ld. AR for the Revenue, opposing the contentions of the
Ld. Advocate, however supported the findings of the lower authorities. He con-
tended that the condition at paragraph 2(h) is a mandatory one and by non-
fulfilment of the same, the appellant would become ineligible for claiming the
refund. He also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of M/s. Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Pune reported in 2004
(171) E.L.T. 296 (S.C.).
6. I have considered the rival contentions and have gone through the
relevant provisions of law and also various orders referred to during the course
of arguments.
7.1 It is an undisputed fact that the appellant did not reverse the equal
amount as required by the condition at paragraph 2(h) of Notification No.
27/2012 (supra). But the fact also remains that there was no provision in the
ACES system to debit the value of refund and also the fact that the entire credit
which was carried forward in TRAN-1 stood reversed by the appellant voluntari-
ly in its GSTR-3B filed for the month of April, 2018.
7.2 The above facts, according to me, are sufficient compliances with
the condition at paragraph 2(h) since post-G.S.T., the scenario is different than
the one prevailing prior to G.S.T. regime. Otherwise, it would become an impos-
sible task for an assessee, more so when the filing of S.T.-3 returns itself was done
away with.
8. I also note that the Board has clarified the above position in its Circu-
lar No. 58/32/2018-G.S.T. (supra) and I also note that more or less the same view
is expressed in all the orders relied on by the Ld. Advocate for the appellant.
9. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the denial
of refund is not in accordance with law and hence, the impugned orders cannot
sustain. The same are set aside.
10. Consequently, the appeals stand allowed with consequential bene-
fits, if any, as per law.
(Order pronounced in the open Court on 22-7-2019)

_______

GST LAW TIMES  16th April 2020  205