Page 130 - GSTL_21st May 2020_Vol 36_Part 3

376 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 36
adjudicating authority has rejected all the refund claims on the ground that in the
copy of Stock/RG-1 register, the rejected goods are mentioned in weight as the
unit, while in all the documents i.e. invoices, transport note, out gate pass, the
quantity of rejected goods are mentioned in Number, as such identity of the re-
turn goods is in doubt and not properly established. The appellant has contested
that they are maintaining RG-1 register in Metric Tonnes but order received in
Nos./Sets, so invoices are prepared as per orders and weight is also mentioned
in the invoices issued by them. They also contested that it cannot be said that the
rejected goods are not same when the description of goods, quantity, weight,
value, duty paid is matching in the invoices issued by them and the rejection let-
ter issued by M/s. Damodar Valley Corporation or by M/s. Neyveli Lignite
Corporation Limited is also available. I observe that there is a basic condition
that the goods are identifiable to the satisfaction of the proper officer. But in the
instant matter, the records have been so maintained that the proper officer is not
in a position to ascertain the factual identification of returned goods from the
records maintained by the appellant. The appellant has also failed to put forth
any reasons as to when the subject goods were initially removed in the unit
quantity as “Nos” then why the entry of said returned goods in their register
have only been made in the unit quantity as “weight in MT”. Thus this also cre-
ates a doubt. Therefore, I do not find any force in the contention of the appellant
and hold that the appellant has in all fronts failed to establish that the goods are
identifiable to the satisfaction of the proper officer.
7. The adjudicating authority has also rejected the refund claims on the
reason that the receiver of the goods are registered with GSTN and therefore they
were required to return the rejected goods to the appellant as supply in terms of
Section 142(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The appellant has contested that the goods
supplied by them were rejected and returned back, therefore it is not a case of
supply in the hands of M/s. Damodar Valley Corporation or by M/s. Neyveli
Lignite Corporation Limited and that the receiver of goods namely M/s. Damo-
dar Valley Corporation or by M/s. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited are ex-
empt from payment of GST and therefore, return of rejected goods are not sup-
ply. I find that the appellant has not disputed the findings of the adjudicating
authority that the receiver of goods namely M/s. Damodar Valley Corporation
are registered with GSTN bearing GSTN-20AABCD0541M1Z5 and M/s. Neyveli
Lignite Corporation Limited are registered with GSTN bearing GSTN-
33AAACN1121C1ZG. Therefore, the contention of the appellant is not acceptable
in view of the clear provision of law which stipulates that the registered person
shall be eligible for refund of the duty paid under the existing law only where
such goods are returned by a person, other than a registered person. But in the in-
stant matter the goods were returned by the registered person, therefore refund
is not admissible in the instant matter on this reason also. Besides, the proviso to
Section 142(1) of the Act provides that if the said goods are returned by a regis-
tered person, the return of such goods shall be deemed to be a supply. The goods
returned by M/s. Damodar Valley Corporation or by M/s. Neyveli Lignite Cor-
poration Limited who are registered person, should be treated as ‘Deemed Sup-
ply’ in their hands in terms of proviso to Section 142(1) of the CGST Act, 2017.
M/s. Damodar Valley Corporation or by M/s. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Lim-
ited were required to charge GST on the Deemed Supply.
8. In view of the above, the above five appeals filed by the appellant are
rejected.
_______
GST LAW TIMES  21st May 2020  130