Order Date – 10 March 2023

Parties: M/s. Datamark Prodapt India BPO LLP Vs The Joint Commissioner of GST

Facts –

• The Petitioner, M/s. Datamark Prodapt India BPO LLP has credit of CENVAT of a sum of Rs.10 lakh (approx) for the months of April, May, June, 2017. The petitioner sought refund of CENVAT credit under Rule 5 for the months of April, May, June, 2017 with an application dated 25.10.2017.
• The petitioner was required to make a debit to the CENVAT credit account at the time of effecting the claim. This is not even statutory requirement and only flows from Notification No.27 / 2012 – CE(NT) dated 18.06.2012.
• The refund was rejected citing the condition under Notification No.27/2012 – CE(NT) dated 18.06.2012 is not complied.

Issue –

• Whether the petitioner is eligible to refund of CENVAT?

Order –

• The Single Bench of Hon’ble High Court observed that the order is patently erroneous on several grounds. Firstly, the eligibility of the petitioner to refund on a substantive basis has itself, never been questioned. The denial is based solely on a technical basis.
• That apart, the fact that Notification No.27/12 has been held to propound an incorrect condition by this Court as well as by the CESTAT ought to have merited consideration with the authority. Further, the claim is fully supported by the provisions of Section 142(3) of the Act.
• Hence the impugned order has no legs to stand and the same is set aside and this writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is entitled to and will receive the refund of the CENVAT credit in cash.