Page 90 - GSTL_ 28th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 4

536 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 36
10. Appeal No. APPL/JPR/CGST/JP/14/VIII/18
10.1 The appellant has filed the instant appeal and shown the amount
under dispute as Rs. 40,263/- (Central Tax) Rs. 40,263/- (State Tax) and
Rs. 5,668/- (Integrated Tax) totaling Rs. 86,194/-. The adjudicating authority vide
the impugned order has held that refund to the extent of Rs. 5,668/-, Rs. 40,263/-
and Rs. 40,263/- (Totaling Rs. 86,194/-) towards IGST, CGST and SGST respec-
tively found inadmissible as the claimant has not provided relevant ITC in-
voice/documents on which ITC has been availed/claimed. The appellant has
contested that Rule 93 as well as Circular 17/17/2017 very clearly say that when-
ever any refund is rejected by the proper officer then he has to make necessary
arrangement by filling Form PMT-03 and RFD-01B to grant the re-credit of re-
jected amount to them. These are mandatory provisions and not optional one to
be exercisable at the option of the proper officer. The adjudicating authority can
follow the other recourse available in the law to disallow the Input Tax Credit
but not at the time of granting or rejecting the refund.
11. Appeal No. APPL/JPR/CGST/JP/15/VIII/18
1 10.1 The appellant has filed the instant appeal and shown the amount
under dispute as Rs. 85,189/- (Central Tax) Rs. 85,189/- (State Tax) and
Rs. 11,992/- (Integrated Tax) totaling Rs. 1,82,370/-. The adjudicating authority
vide the impugned order has held that refund to the extent of Rs. 11,992/-,
Rs. 85,189/- and Rs. 85,189/- (totaling Rs. 1,82,370/-) towards IGST, CGST and
SGST respectively found inadmissible as the claimant has not provided relevant
ITC invoice/documents on which ITC has been availed /claimed. The appellant
has contested that Rule 93 as well as Circular 17/17/2017 very clearly say that
whenever any refund is rejected by the proper officer then he has to make neces-
sary arrangement by filling Form PMT-03 and RFD-01B to grant the re-credit of
rejected amount to them. These are mandatory provisions and not optional one
to be exercisable at the option of the proper officer. The adjudicating authority
can follow the other recourse available in the law to disallow the input tax credit
but not at the time of granting or rejecting the refund.
12. I find that in all the six appeals, the main issue involved is that
whether the re-credit of ITC of inputs was to be allowed to the extent, the refund
claims were rejected as the appellant had already debited the entire ITC of inputs
in their electronic ledger that had been claimed in the refunds claims and some
amount out of that amount, were rejected by the adjudicating authority. The ad-
judicating authority has not allowed the re-credit on the grounds that the claim-
ant has not provided ITC invoice/documents. The appellant has contested that
Rule 93 as well as Circular 17/17/2017 very clearly say that whenever any re-
fund is rejected by the proper officer then he has to make necessary arrangement
by filling Form PMT-03 and RFD-01B to grant the re-credit of rejected amount to
them. The appellant has also contested that the proper officer did not allow the
proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant as the issue of not allowing
re-credit was not given under the Show Cause Notice. The appellant could not
present his side against such view of the proper officer which is against the prin-
ciple of natural justice. Rule 93 of CGST Rules, 2017 stipulates as under :
RULE 93. Credit of the amount of rejected refund claim. - (1) Where
any deficiencies have been communicated under sub-rule (3) of rule 90, the
________________________________________________________________________
1 Paragraph number as per official text.
GST LAW TIMES  28th May 2020  90