SAURABH AGGARWAL PROPRIETOR OF M/S AARAV PLASTICS vs COMMISSIONER, CGST DELHI NORTH AND ORS.
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 04.10.2023
+ W.P.(C) 11453/2023
SAURABH AGGARWAL PROPRIETOR OF
M/S AARAV PLASTICS ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vineet Bhatia & Mr. Bipin Punia, Advs.
Versus
COMMISSIONER, CGST DELHI NORTH
AND ORS. ….. Respondents
Through: Ms. Neha Malik, Adv. for R1 to 3.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that the directions be issued to respondents to refund an amount of ?2,42,846/- of unutilised Input Tax Credit (ITC) along with the applicable interest.
2. The petitioner had filed an application on 30.03.2022 seeking refund of a sum of ?2,42,846/- on account of inverted duty structure. The adjudicating authority issued a show cause notice dated 25.05.2022 proposing to reject the petitioners application on two grounds. First, that there was a mismatch in the reported turnover for the relevant period (April 2021 to September, 2021); and second, that the petitioners claim was for ITC in respect of goods classified under HSN 6404 (ready footwear), which was also the petitioners outward supplies, and therefore, there could be no inverted duty structure.
3. The petitioner filed a response to the show cause notice on 30.05.2022 attaching certain documents in support of its claim. However, the petitioners application was rejected by an order dated 31.05.2022 on the ground that the petitioner had not filed the requisite documents. There is a serious controversy in this regard as according to the petitioner, a soft copy of the requisite documents was attached as a pdf file.
4. The petitioner appealed the order dated 31.05.2022 before the appellate authority. However, the petitioners appeal was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had not submitted the copies of the statutory records (GSTR-1, GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A) for the relevant period and therefore, the petitioners claim could not be co-related.
5. It is not disputed that the petitioner was not asked to furnish the said documents. It is also the petitioners case that the statutory records were available on its portal with the concerned authorities.
6. In view of the above, we consider it apposite to remand the matter to the appellate authority for consideration afresh. The appellate authority shall issue an appropriate notice calling upon the petitioner to produce all such documents as the appellate authority considers necessary for processing the said claims. The petitioner shall also file such documents as are necessary, including the copies of its statutory returns, which according to the appellate authority are necessary to co-relate the petitioners claim for refund, within a period of two weeks from today.
7. The appellate authority is requested to consider the petitioners appeal and decide afresh within a period of six weeks from today.
8. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
OCTOBER 4, 2023
Ch
W.P.(C) No.11453/2023 Page 1 of 1