Order Date – 04 January 2024

Parties: M/s Mittal Footcare Vs The Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and Anr.

Facts –

• The Petitioner, M/s Mittal Footcare, filed a refund of Input Tax Credit with relevant documents, which was rejected on the ground that there was a mismatch of turnover, excess availment and misdeclaration of invoice value and no supporting documents to disprove the said contention were supplied in response to the show cause notice.
• Further on the ground that Annexure B has not been signed or authenticated.

Issue –

• Whether the rejection of refund application is proper?

Order –

• The Divisional Bench of Hon’ble High court observed that the appellate authority appears to have misconstrued the submission of the petitioner. Case of the petitioner is that petitioner had uploaded documents, however, the system did not register the documents which were uploaded from the end of the petitioner. The appellate authority records that petitioner had not submitted any documents which were submitted along with the reply.
• A refund cannot be rejected merely on the ground of non supply of authenticated document. In case party is entitled to refund, it is open to the Department to call for further clarification or documents as may be required to satisfy itself that refund is due and payable.
• Section 54 (1) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, which provides for a period of two years from the relevant date to make an application seeking refund. The relevant period in issue is April, 2021 to March, 2022 and as such, the application of the petitioner even today is within the limitation prescribed under Section 54 (1) of the said Act.
• In view of the above, the matter needs to be relegated to the concerned authority to re-adjudicate the application of the petitioner by taking into account the documents filed by the petitioner in support of his application for refund.