Balaji Exim VS Commissioner, CGST

The petitioner challenges the consolidated Order-In-Appeal dated 31.03.2022, which dismissed their appeals against Order-In-Original Nos. ZU0707210034420 dated 03.07.2021 and ZT0707210034442 dated 02.07.2021. Due to the absence of a constituted Tribunal, the petitioner cannot pursue the statutory appeal available to them. The petitioner originally sought a refund of ₹72,03,961 through a refund application dated 11.09.2020, comprising ₹19,53,062 of IGST and ₹52,50,899 of Cess. Another application on 12.09.2020 sought ₹12,40,270 in ITC refund, with ₹3,37,174 of IGST and ₹9,03,096 of Cess.

The petitioner has filed petitions challenging the combined Order-In-Appeal dated 31.03.2022 (Order-In-Appeal No.347-348/2021-22), which dismissed separate appeals against Order-In-Original Nos. ZU0707210034420 dated 03.07.2021 and ZT0707210034442 dated 02.07.2021. Despite having a statutory right to appeal, the petitioner cannot pursue this remedy due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal.

The petitioner sought a refund of ₹72,03,961/- through a refund application dated 11.09.2020 (Form GST-RFD-01), comprising ₹19,53,062/- IGST and ₹52,50,899/- Cess. Additionally, another refund application dated 12.09.2020 (Form GST-RFD-01) claimed ₹12,40,270/- ITC, with ₹3,37,174/- IGST and ₹9,03,096/- Cess, for goods exported. Respondent no.2 acknowledged the second application on 27.09.2020 (Form GST-RFD-02) but issued a deficiency memo for the first application on 21.09.2020, prompting the petitioner to reapply with all necessary documents on 23.09.2020.

The petitioner challenges the combined Order-In-Appeal of 31.03.2022, which upheld the dismissal of their appeals against Order-In-Original Nos. ZU0707210034420 dated 03.07.2021 and ZT0707210034442 dated 02.07.2021. Despite their statutory right to appeal, the absence of a constituted Tribunal prevents the petitioner from pursuing this remedy.

The petitioner filed refund applications on 11.09.2020 and 12.09.2020 seeking refunds of ₹72,03,961/- and ₹12,40,270/- respectively, relating to unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) on exported goods. Respondent no.2 acknowledged the latter application but issued a deficiency memo for the former due to missing documents, prompting a reapplication with complete documentation by 23.09.2020, acknowledged on 01.10.2020.

Processing of the petitioner’s applications stalled due to alleged issuance of fake invoices by their goods supplier. Following a search at the petitioner’s premises on 21.10.2020 by Central GST officers, the proprietor was summoned on 23.10.2020 to provide additional documents, which were submitted despite subsequent summons on 28.12.2020 for already furnished materials.

The petitioner challenges the combined Order-In-Appeal dated 31.03.2022 (Order-In-Appeal No.347-348/2021-22), which dismissed their appeals against Order-In-Original Nos. ZU0707210034420 dated 03.07.2021 and ZT0707210034442 dated 02.07.2021. Despite the statutory right to appeal, the petitioner cannot pursue this remedy due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal.

Earlier, the petitioner filed refund applications seeking ₹72,03,961/- and ₹12,40,270/- in unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) related to IGST and Cess on exported goods. Respondent no.2 acknowledged the ₹12,40,270/- refund but issued a deficiency memo for the first application, citing missing documents. After resubmission, this was acknowledged on 01.10.2020.

The refund processing stalled due to allegations that the petitioner’s supplier, M/s Shruti Exports, issued fake invoices, blocking their ITC. Following a search at the petitioner’s premises and document submission, delays persisted despite multiple requests for expedited processing.

Meanwhile, M/s Shruti Exports sought relief in the Calcutta High Court to unblock their Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL)

The petitioner has filed petitions challenging the Order-In-Appeal dated 31.03.2022, which dismissed their appeals against Order-In-Original Nos. ZU0707210034420 and ZT0707210034442. Despite having a statutory right to appeal, the petitioner cannot proceed due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal. They sought a refund of ₹72,03,961 in unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) through applications filed on 11.09.2020 and 12.09.2020, relating to IGST and Cess on exported goods. While one refund application was acknowledged, the other was deficient initially, later supplemented with required documents.

The petitioner’s applications were stalled due to alleged fake invoices issued by their supplier, M/s Shruti Exports, prompting a search by Central GST officers in petitioner’s premises on 21.10.2020. Despite compliance with document requests, subsequent summons and delays persisted. The petitioner’s pleas for expedited refund processing were unheeded. Meanwhile, concerns arose about M/s Shruti Exports’ involvement in fake invoices, leading to a show cause notice on 04.06.2021 proposing rejection of refunds based on investigations and allegations surrounding M/s Shruti Exports’ activities, including availing CGST, SGST, and Cess through dubious means.

The petitioner challenges the combined Order-In-Appeal of 31.03.2022, which dismissed their appeals against Orders-In-Original ZU0707210034420 dated 03.07.2021 and ZT0707210034442 dated 02.07.2021. Despite having the right to appeal, the petitioner is unable to do so because the Tribunal has not been constituted.

The petitioner filed refund applications on 11.09.2020 and 12.09.2020, seeking ₹72,03,961/- and ₹12,40,270/- respectively in unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) for exported goods. Respondent no.2 acknowledged the latter but issued a deficiency memo for the former due to missing documents, which were subsequently submitted on 23.09.2020.

The applications were stalled because the petitioner’s supplier allegedly received fake invoices, prompting a search at the petitioner’s premises on 21.10.2020. The petitioner complied with document requests but faced repeated summonses and delays in processing their refunds.

Meanwhile, allegations surfaced against the supplier, M/s Shruti Exports, for issuing fake invoices, which affected the petitioner’s ITC. A show cause notice on 04.06.2021 proposed rejecting the petitioner’s refunds, citing investigations into the supplier’s activities. The petitioner responded and attended a hearing on 01.07.2021, asserting the genuineness of their transactions.

The petitioner argued that they were unaffected by allegations against M/s Shruti Exports, noting a Calcutta High Court order in favor of unblocking ITC related to the supplier.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: