RAJIV SHARMA HUF PROPRIETOR OF M/S. SAGAR SCOOTER SYNDICATE THROUGH ITS KARTA RAJIV SHARMA

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. vide W. P. (C) 9381/2023 dated 26.07.2024               

 Citation: 2024 Taxo.online 1648

The Delhi High Court in this case stated that Notices in FORM GST RFD-08 require proper officer's satisfaction of refund inadmissibility based on records, not a general inquiry. Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST, clarifies that BRCs are not mandatory for refund claims on export of goods. The Court found that BRCs are unnecessary for export of goods; petitioner provided them eventually. Rule 96B cited by the Appellate Authority was misapplied as petitioner had realized export proceeds. Petitioner claimed compliance; however, authority cited insufficiency. The Appellate Authority incorrectly expanded the grounds to include compliance with Section 16(2)(c) CGST Act without initial SCN indication. The matter is back to the adjudicating authority to verify if the petitioner made payments for inward supplies claimed for ITC refund. Petitioner allowed to submit necessary documents for verification.

In this case, the petitioner filed writ petition to challenge order rejecting their refund claim. Refund rejection was based on Certain invoices not reflected in GSTR-2A, Missing E-Way bills, Absence of Bank Realization Certificates (BRCs), Incomplete bank statements and ledger accounts of suppliers. It was argued that BRCs are not required for refund on export of goods. The Appellate Authority upheld the rejection, emphasizing Rule 96B CGST Rules on the necessity of BRCs and also cited incomplete supplier ledger accounts.

To read more about this Judgement, subscribe today: https://taxo.online/product/taxo-pro/

Already a subscriber, Click to LOGIN & refer to the TAXO GST CASE LAWS

     Or

Call us:- +91 99101 67919, 99996 93426