Procedural delay in reversing the credit will not disentitle the assessee from claiming refund

Last updated: 29 July 2021
Quick Summary
The CESTAT, Bengaluru, ruled that a procedural delay in reversing credit in Form GSTR-3B does not prevent an assessee from claiming a refund. The tribunal found that the assessee had indeed reversed the credit, and any delay was a minor procedural lapse, not a substantive issue that should lead to the disallowance of the refund. This decision clarifies that such technicalities should not bar rightful claims.

Court :
CESTAT Bengaluru

Brief :
The Hon'ble CESTAT, Bengaluru, in the matter of M/s Chariot International Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax [Central Excise Appeal No. 20158 of 2020 dated June 17, 2021] set aside the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) disallowing the refund claims of the assessee on the ground that credit reversal in Form GSTR-3B pertains to GST credit and not CENVAT credit. Held that, procedural delay will not disentitle the assessee from claiming refund when credit had been reversed in Form GSTR-3B.

Citation :
Central Excise Appeal No. 20158 of 2020 dated June 17, 2021

Daily Limit Reached

You have reached your daily limit of 2 Free Judgements

Subscribe to CCI PRO for unlimited access

Why Upgrade to CCI PRO?
  • No Ads
  • WhatsApp Broadcasts
  • Daily E-Newsletter
  • Unlimited Judgements Access
BEST VALUE
2 YEAR PLAN
3,499
(Inclusive of GST)
1 YEAR PLAN
1,999
(Inclusive of GST)
View all CCI PRO benfits

Already a PRO member? Login here for an ad-free experience.

 

Bimal Jain
Published in GST
Views : 154
Share Report Abuse
Comments


Recent Judgments :

  1. Cancellation of GST registration based on defective verification reports fails the statutory test of 'reasons to believe’
  2. Time Spent in Pursuing Rectification Application under Section 161 of the CGST Act Excludible While Computing Limitation for Filing Appeal under Section 107
  3. Limitation for filing GST appeal runs from the date of actual communication of the order as declared by the dealer unless rebutted by the Revenue through cogent material
  4. Supreme Court: Cruise Operators Eligible for Section 44B Presumptive Taxation; Hospitality Services Do Not Change Nature of ‘Carriage’
  5. Karnataka High Court Quashes Externment Order Passed Without Adequate Opportunity of Hearing
  6. Supreme Court: No Service Tax on Indivisible Turnkey ATM Contracts Prior to 1 June 2007
  7. ITAT Quashes AY 2015-16 Reassessment as Section 148 Notice Issued After 1 April 2021 Was Invalid
  8. ITAT Condones 2,073-Day Delay and Deletes Addition for Cash Deposit Explained by Property Sale and Savings
  9. ITAT Deletes Addition for Alleged On-Money Payment Due to Lack of Evidence Against Buyer
  10. ITAT Holds Estate with Sole Executor Taxable at Individual Slab Rates, Not Maximum Marginal Rate

View More Judgments »


Trending Online Classes

view all classess

CCI Pro
Meet our CAclubindia PRO Members
Pro Member SUBASH CHANDRA BOSESUBASH CHANDRA BOSEPro Member Jaipal SinghJaipal SinghPro Member Biswajit SenguptaBiswajit SenguptaPro Member Sagar GoyalSagar GoyalPro Member Ishwarya Keerthi BIshwarya Keerthi B
Subscribe to Pro
Join an elite circle of professionals

Browse by Category