This appeal has been filed under Section 107 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 by M/s HDFC Bank Limited, IInd Floor, JTN Anukampa, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Hereinafter also referred to as “the appellant”) against the Order-in-Original No. 45 / GST / REFUND /FINAL/2018-19 dated 13.09.2018 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned order”) passed by -Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax Division-H, Jaipur (hereinafter also referred to as “the adjudicating authority”).

Brief facts of the case:-

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant having GSTIN No. 08AAACH2702H1Z0 for banking and other financial services filed application for refund claim under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 in respect of wrong payment of Cess amounting to ₹ 66,359/- on sale of vehicle. The appellant have collected advances along with taxes (including Cess) from the employee towards the Sale of Old Car in the month of November, 2017 and discharged their liability of CESS amounting to ₹ 66,359/- in the GST Return. The application for refund claim in respect of Cess was filed on the ground that the CESS is on Old and Used Motor Vehicle was exempted vide Notification No.01/2018 Compensation Cess dated 25.01.2018. The CESS amounting to ₹ 66,359/- was deposited by the appellant against Invoice No. A 2250 dated 21.11.2017 having description ‘advance towards sale of car.’ Nil rate of Cess came into force vide Notification No.01/2018 Compensation Cess dated 25.01.2018. On the other hand, the invoice had already been raised by the appellant on 21.11.2017 with description therein ‘Advance towards sale of car’. Accordingly Show Cause Notice dated 27.07.2018 was issued to the appellant by the adjudicating authority for rejection of refund claim of cess which further culminated into the impugned order No.45/GST/Refund/Final/2018-19 dated 13.09.2018 vide which the adjudicating authority has rejected the refund claim on the ground that no evidence, whether the car was old and used, has been furnished by the appellant.

3. Being aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellant has filed the appeal on various grounds which are summarized as under:

(i) That the appellant made the claim for refund in view of the Notification No.66/2017 (Central Tax) dated 15.11.2017 that no CESS was payable on advance received against supply. They have collected advance vide invoice No. A 2250 dated 21.11.2017 along with CGST ₹ 46,451/- and SGST ₹ 46,451/- including Cess of ₹ 66,359/- from employees for purchase of car at future date.

(ii) That they are banking company and are not a dealer registered in sale and purchase of motor vehicles.

(iii) That the appellant paid CGST ₹ 46,451/- and SGST ₹ 46,451/- including CESS of ₹ 66,359/- and was reversed/adjusted in the subsequent return and GST collected was refunded to the employees and the GST adjusted in the return filed, however, adjustment of CESS could not be done even against future liability as discontinuance of CESS came into force w.e.f. 25.01.2018 and therefore, the appellant had to claim the refund for the CESS amount.

4. Personal Hearing in the case has been conducted on 27.03.2019. Shri Hemchand Kumawat, Advocate on behalf of appellant appeared for personal hearing. He explained the case in detail and reiterated the grounds as mentioned in their appeal memorandum and requested to decide the case at the earliest.

5. I have carefully gone through the facts of the case and records available as well as submissions made by the appellant at the time of personal hearing conducted on 27.03.2019.

6. On perusal of facts available on record, I find that the adjudicating authority has rejected the refund on sole ground that the appellant has not furnished any evidence that the car was old and used. Moreover, on perusal of the invoice No. A 2250 dated 21.11.2017 raised by the appellant in the name of employee Shri Abhishek Mahajan has mentioned in the column description of the Goods ‘Advance Towards the Sale of Car’ and except this nothing more has been mentioned regarding Old and New nature of the Car. Also, the registration number, engine number and make year were not mentioned at all in the invoice from which the conclusion can be drawn that the car mentioned in the face of invoice is old one. Benefit of Notification No.1/2018-Compensation Cess(Rate) dated 25.01.2018 can be availed for the old and used motor vehicles only. The appellant has not furnished any substantial evidence which prove that the car mentioned in the invoice is old and used in their grounds of appeal.

7. The appellant’s contention that the CESS is not applicable on advance towards sale of the car in the light of the Notification No. 66/2017- Central Tax dated 15.11.2017. On plain reading of the Notification it is ample clear that the taxes are payable on the outward supply of goods at the time of supply. But in the instant case on perusal of documents submitted by the appellant it is not evident as on which date the supply of car has been affected to the employee. In the absence of the date of supply of car, the benefit of notification can not be extended to the appellant.

8. In view of the above discussions and findings, I hereby reject the appeal filled by the appellant.