Central Goods and Services Tax Commissioner v. HC Mahajan Fabrics (P.) Ltd.
The petitioner had submitted a request for a refund in accordance with Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017. Although the order was reconsidered, the application in consideration was reviewed. The review decision specified that the appeal be submitted to the Appellate Authority since two of the several invoices for which a refund was requested were not shown in the e-vahan portal. Because the petitioner had not proven that the items had been received, the Appellate Authority upheld the Revenue’s appeal. It submitted a writ petition contesting the contested orders.
The Honorable High Court concluded that the fact that certain invoices contained vehicle numbers that were not reflected in the portal did not make the refund claim or the information supplied in the invoice’s ineligible or inaccurate, respectively. In this instance, the appellate authority upheld the department’s appeal on the grounds that the department had failed to provide the necessary documentation, despite the fact that the portal had recorded the vehicle numbers for the relevant two invoices as having been received, to demonstrate that the goods had in fact been supplied.
The Court further pointed out that there are no laws mandating that information be reflected in the e-vahan portal in order to request a refund. Because the requirements outlined in section 16 had been met and the petitioner had provided the information required in its return for making such a claim, it was decided that the petitioner was qualified to seek a refund of input tax credit. As a result, the Court granted the writ petition and determined that the challenged orders could not stand.
