Page 91 - GSTL_ 28th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 4

2020 ] IN RE : GRAVITA INDIA LTD. 537
amount debited under sub-rule (3) of rule 89 shall be re-credited to the elec-
tronic credit ledger.
(2) Where any amount claimed as refund is rejected under rule 92, either
fully or partly, the amount debited, to the extent of rejection, shall be re-
credited to the electronic credit ledger by an order made in FORM GST
PMT-03*.
Explanation. - For the purposes of this rule, a refund shall be deemed to be
rejected, if the appeal is finally rejected or if the claimant gives an undertak-
ing in writing to the proper officer that he shall not file an appeal.
Further para 2.10 of C.B.E. & C.’s Circular No. 17/17/2017-GST, dated 15-11-2017
stipulates as under :
2.10 After the refund claim is processed in accordance with the provisions
of the CGST Act and the rules made thereunder and where any amount
claimed as refund is rejected under rule 92 of the CGST Rules, either fully
or partly, the amount debited, to the extent of rejection, shall be re-credited
to the electronic credit ledger by an order made in FORM GST PMT-03.
The amount would be credited by the proper officer using FORM GST
RFD-01B (as notified in the CGST Rule, vide notification No. 55/2017-
Central Tax, dated 15-11-2017) subject to the provisions of rule 93 of the
CGST Rules.
1 12. From the above provisions of law, it can be seen that the adjudicat-
ing authority was required to allow the re-credit of the amount already debited
to the extent of rejection, but the adjudicating authority has not allowed the re-
credit. The above provisions do not stipulate that in the case of non-submission
of invoices etc., the re-credit should not be allowed. Thus, I hold that the im-
pugned order to the extent of not allowing the re-credit of the amount already
debited by the appellant, to the extent of rejection without allowing the proper
opportunity to present his case is not legally correct and therefore, I set aside the
impugned orders to that extent and direct the adjudicating authority to allow the
appellant to present his case regarding not allowing re-credit of the amount al-
ready debited to the extent of rejection.
13. Further, the department is free to take appropriate action as per law
to recover the ITC of inputs if the appellant had availed ITC on inputs without
having proper documents/invoices etc.
14. As regards the recovery of Rs. 1,45,786/- and Rs. 8,138/- in respect
of the excess amounts sanctioned provisionally for the refund claim file for the
month September, 2017 and October, 2017 respectively, the appellant has con-
tested that amount cannot be recovered when the re-credit was admissible. The
contention of the appellant is not acceptable as sanction of refund in cash and
allowing of re-credit in the electronic register cannot be considered as same
thing. Since, the amount was excess sanctioned in cash; the same is recoverable
in cash along with interest. However, the re-credit to the appellant is admissible.
15. The above six appeals filed by the appellant are disposed of in the
above manner.

_______

________________________________________________________________________
1 Paragraph number as per official text.
GST LAW TIMES  28th May 2020  91