Page 101 - GSTL_ 28th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 4

2020 ] IN RE : VAACHI INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. 547
6 Vaachi International 19AABCV5897L1ZF 1,36,872.00
Pvt. Ltd.,
9 Goodluck Packaging 19AADCG6008L1ZF 71,822.93
Pvt. Ltd.
Total 6,10,776.13

The appellant further declare that it has neither given nor intended to give
in future any declaration and Certificate of Endorsement of supplies from
the Specified Officer, which is compulsorily for the supplier to obtain from
SEZ unit to apply for refund, to its suppliers (other than mentioned in Table
2.3.2) so as to enable the suppliers to claim the refund of taxes paid on sup-
plies made to the appellant. Accordingly, the total amount sought as refund
in this appeal stand reduced by Rs. 6,10,776/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Ten Thou-
sand Seven Hundred and Seventy Six only).
2.4 As per the grounds cited above, we conclude that we are eligible for
the refund claimed of Rs. 20,97,104/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Ninety Seven
Thousand One Hundred and Four only) in this appeal as reduced by Rs.
6,10,776/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Ten Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy
Six only) which comes to Rs. 14,86,328/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Eighty Six
Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty Eight only) which is bona fide for the
ends of justice and that the balance of convenience weighs very much in fa-
vour of the appellant.
Para-wise remarks :
12. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Gajuwaka Circle, Visakhapatnam
Division has submitted Para-wise remarks on 3-12-2019 against the grounds of
appeal of the appellant, and the same is extracted hereunder :
I invite kind attention to the reference cited and submit the para-wise re-
marks for the appeal filed by the dealer, M/s. Vaachi International Pvt.
Ltd., against the Tax orders of the CTO, Gajuwaka Circle, for the tax period
2017-18 under GST Act.
For the impugned order suffers from misappropriation and/or incorrect
appreciation of facts, and is violative of the natural justice, wrongful, bi-
ased, erroneous and bad in law.
1.1 All the grounds for appeal as prayed herein are independent of each
other and is read without prejudice to each other and conjoined reading of
more than one ground for appeal may be done as requested and prayed.
The rejection confirmed by the adjudicating authority is against the estab-
lished principles of law.
In reply to objection 1 it is submitted that the application, along with the
documents, filed has been primarily examined with reference to Section
54(3), Rule 89 of the APGST Act, 2017 and issued RFD-02, dated 19-3-2019
(acknowledgment). The refund claim has been further examined, and it was
observed that the taxpayer was not eligible to claim refund of ITC on Ex-
port of Goods and Services without payment of IGST, since such provision
is available to the taxpayers who made zero-rated supplies to SEZ
unit/developer with payment of tax under Section 54 read with Rule 89(2)
only. Accordingly, it was sought to issue Show-cause Notice (RFD-08) from
RFD-02 stage (acknowledgment), on the proposed rejection of the refund
claim. However, issued RFD-04, dated 30-3-2019 wherein provisional re-
fund to the extent of 20%, amounting to Rs. 46,205/- (CGST); 46,205/-

GST LAW TIMES  28th May 2020  101