ORDER

These three appeals have been filed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter also referred to as “the Act”) by M/s Lupin Limited, 51A, Jhotwara Industrial Area, Jaipur-302012 (hereinafter also referred to as “the appellant”) against the Orders-in-Original (hereinafter as “the impugned orders”) passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax Division-A, Jaipur (hereinafter called as “the adjudicating authority”) as mentioned below. As common issue is involved in all these three appeals therefore, I take up the same for decision simultaneously:

S. No.	Appeal No	Order in Original No & date (Impugned order)	Period of dispute	Order sanctioning/ rejecting refund
1	2	3	4	5
1	APPL/JPR/CGST/ JP/93/X/2020	Order dated 1.9.2020	Appellant has filed refund claim under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 of ₹ 2,53,95,075/- for the period September- 2018 in respect of Excess Tax paid.	Refund rejected Rs.2,53,95,075/- (IGST) Total Rs. 2,53,95,075/-.
2	APPL/JPR/CGST/ JP/94/X/2020/	Order dated 01.09.2020	Appellant has filed refund claim under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 of ₹ 1,40,99,824/- for the period  June-2018 in respect of Excess Tax paid.	Refund rejected ₹ 1,40,99,824/- (IGST) Total ₹ 1,40,99,824/-.
3	APPL/JPR/CGST/ JP/95/X/2020/	Order dated 01.09.2020	Appellant has filed refund claim under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 of ₹ 2,49,174/- for the period August- 2018 in respect of Excess Tax paid.	Refund rejected ₹ 2,49,174/-(IGST) Total ₹ 2,49,174/-.

2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

2.1 The appellant having GSTIN No.08AAACL1069K1ZF is engaged in manufacture and supply of pharmaceutical products falling under Chapter 30 of the CGST Tariff having their principal place of business at 51A, Jhotwara Industrial Area, Jaipur, has filed refund claims under Section 54(3) of CGST Act,2017 in respect of excess payment of tax for the period and amount mentioned at above in Para-1 of the above Table in column No.(4) & (5).

2.2 The adjudicating authority has issued a show cause notices in Form GST-RFD-08 No.ZS0808200154653 dated 11.8.2020, ZT0808200154597 dated 11.8.2020 and No.ZZ0808200101631 dated 08.08.2020 respectively proposing rejection of refund claims and given the following remarks therein:

i) Taxpayer issued Invoice No.1 to RITES of taxable value of ₹ 11,74,98,541/- and GST ₹ 1,40,99,825/-) and also issued debit note of Taxable value of ₹ 9,53,12,728/- and GST ₹ 1,14,37,527/-. In this regard they issued Credit Note No.1 and 2 of that much amount to negate the effect of Invoice and debit note.

ii) The Taxpayer issued Invoices No.2 in the name of MOHFW of taxable value ₹ 11,83,89,351/- and GST ₹ 1,42,06,722/-. They mentioned wrong place of supply in the invoice. Thereafter they issued invoice No.3 to MOHFW of the same value and GST. In view of the above it appeared that the tax payer has not paid excess tax as they amended the liability by way of issuing Cr Note and Debit Note.

2.3 Further, the adjudicating authority after considering their reply to show cause notices passed the impugned Orders in Original all dated 01.09.2020 and has rejected the refund claims for the period and amount mentioned at above in Para-1 in column No.(4) and (5) filed by the appellant.

3. Being aggrieved with the impugned orders all dated 01.09.2020, the appellant has filed these appeals on the following grounds which are summarized as under:-

3.1 During the month of August-2017 to October-2017, the Appellants supplied certain pharmaceutical goods and raised invoices and also paid GST thereon. However, later on, the Appellants realized that there were certain errors crept in the relevant invoices. To correct such errors, the Appellants issued credit notes against the respective invoices. However, even in this act of correction also, there were certain errors of calculation or of amount or inadvertent human errors resulting into necessity for issuing repeated credit notes and debit notes and also fresh invoices. All these clerical errors and innocuous human errors were corrected by issuing 3 sets of credit notes at different points of time and debit notes duly reflected in GSTR-1. However, in the midst of whole confusion and resultant complications, the Appellant also happened to pay GST twice on the self same goods, as is indubitably manifest and self-evident from the relevant Forms GSTR-3B reflecting payment of GST twice. The exact details of sequence of events and types of errors occurred in raising of invoices and credit notes are discussed later incoming para.

3.2 During the month of August, 2017 to October, 2017(Relevant Period), the Appellant supplied certain pharmaceutical goods against 23 GST invoices having taxable value of ₹ 11,83,89,351/- and GST of ₹ 1,42,06,722/- to their customers, namely, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Delhi (MOHFW). Supplies to MOHFW are routed through a procurement agent called RITES Ltd, who further supplies the goods to different consignees situated across India on behalf of MOHFW. Supplies to MOHFW were made as supplies to unregistered customer i.e. B2C supply.

3.3 The 23 B2C GST invoices were issued to RITES Ltd instead of MOHFW with taxable value of ₹ 11,74,98,541/- and GST of ₹ 1,40,99,825/ (hereinafter referred to as ‘Invoice ONE’). Thus, there were two errors here, namely, the following :

• B2C GST invoices were issued in the name of RITES Ltd (instead of MOHFW); and
• GST was short paid to the extent of ₹ 1,06,898/-.

The aforesaid 23 B2C GST invoices were disclosed in respective Form GSTR-1 filed for the tax period August, 2017 to October, 2017 and GST of ₹ 1,40,99,825/-was paid vide respective Form GSTR-3B filed for the tax period August, 2017 to October, 2017. (First-time payment of GST).

3.4 First, a set of B2C GST Credit Notes in the name of RITES Ltd having taxable value of ₹ 11,83,89,358/- and GST of ₹ 1,42,06,723/- were issued in June 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Credit Note ONE’). As such, these Credit Notes ONE were inadvertently issued for a GST amount of ₹ 1,42,06,723/- instead of being issued for ₹ 1,40, 99,825/-. Further, as it was required, these Credit Notes ONE were correctly reported in the GSTR-1 return of September 2018 and October 2018 and were correctly not considered in the GSTR-3B return of September 2018 and October 2018.

3.5 Inadvertently, another set of B2C GST Credit Notes in the name of RITES Ltd having taxable value of ₹ 9,44,21,917/- and GST of ₹ 1,13,30,630/- were issued in the subsequent months of August- 2018 and September- 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Credit Notes TWO’). Further, as it was required, these were also correctly reported in the GSTR-1 return of September, 2018 and October, 2018, respectively, and were not considered in GSTR-3B in the respective months.

3.6 Thus, two sets of Credit Notes totaling to a taxable value of ₹ 21,28,11,275/- (₹ 11,83,89,358/- plus ₹ 9,44,21,917/-) and GST of ₹ 2,55,37,353/(₹ 1,42,06,723/- plus ₹ 1,13,30,630/-) were issued against the 23 B2C GST invoices mentioned in paragraph above. Both sets of Credit Notes were also correctly uploaded in GSTR-1 returns, as it was required.

3.7 In order to achieve the desired effect of correct GST amount as mentioned in paragraph above, a set of 13 B2C GST Debit Notes in the name of RITES Ltd having taxable value of ₹ 9,53,12,728/- and GST of ₹ 1,14,37,527/- were issued in August 2018 (1 B2C GST Debit note with Taxable value of ₹ 20,76,452/- and GST of ₹ 2,49,174/-) and in September 2018 ( balance 12 B2C GST Debit Note with Taxable Value of ₹ 9,32,36,276/- and GST of ₹ 1,11,88,353) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Debit Note’). The Debit Note was also correctly uploaded in respective GSTR- 1 returns.

3.8 Thus, the net effect desired by the aforesaid three actions mentioned in above paragraphs was to ensure GST payable on the 23 B2C GST invoices to be ₹ 1,40,99,825/-(i.e. ₹ 1,42,06,723/- plus ₹ 1,13,30,630/- minus ₹ 1,14,37,527/-). However, while Credit Notes ONE, Credit Notes TWO and Debit Note were correctly disclosed in the GSTR-1 returns of 13 respective months, the Debit Note was inadvertently also considered as liability in the corresponding GSTR-3B returns of the respective months. This culminated into excess payment of GST of ₹ 1,14,37,527/- (i.e. pertaining to Debit Note) in August, 2018 (GST of ₹ 2,49,174/-) and in September, 2018 (GST of ₹ 1,11,88,353/-).

3.9 Further, as mentioned in para above, a new set of 23 B2C GST invoices in the name of MOHFW with GST of ₹ 1,42,06,722/- were to be issued. However, while issuing the same, again due to an inadvertent error, the Place of Supply (‘POS’) was wrongly printed on the 23 B2C GST invoices issued in June 2018 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Invoice TWO’).

3.10 In order to rectify the above mistake of wrong POS in GST Invoice TWO, a set of B2C GST Credit Notes with GST of ₹ 1,42,06,722/- were issued in September 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Credit Notes THREE’). Even these adjustments were required to be made only in Form GSTR-1.

3.11 However, while Invoice TWO and Credit Note THREE were correctly disclosed in the GSTR-1 of September, 2018, thereby nullifying the GST effect in GSTR-1, Invoice TWO was also wrongly considered as additional liability in GSTR-3B of June, 2018. This culminated into excess GST payment of ₹ 1,42,06,722/- in the month of June, 2018.

3.12 As Invoice TWO was nullified by issuance of Credit Notes THREE, another set of 23 B2C Invoices were issued in September, 2018 with taxable value of ₹ 11,83,89,351/- with GST of ₹ 1,42,06,722/- (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Invoice THREE’). Invoice THREE was duly disclosed in the GSTR-1 return of September 2018, however, it was wrongly considered as liability in corresponding GSTR-3B return, thereby leading to excess GST payment of ₹ 1,42,06,772/- in the month of September, 2018.

3.13 Thus, for the supply made during the period August, 2017 to October, 2017, through multiple inadvertent errors, 3 Invoices (Invoice ONE, Invoice TWO and Invoice THREE), 1 Debit note (Debit Note) and 3 Credit Notes (Credit Notes ONE, Credit Notes TWO and Credit Note THREE) were issued against the same supply. As a Debit Note is as good as an invoice, in effect, 4 invoices were issued, which were reported correctly in the respective GSTR-1 returns along with all the 3 GST Credit notes. However, inadvertently, GST on all the 4 Invoices were paid in corresponding GSTR-3B returns leading to excess payment of GST of ₹ 3,98,50,972/-. the breakup of which is given herein below:

Month	Document	Excess Payment of GST(Rs.)
Jun-18	Invoice 2	142 06722
Total June 18	14206722
Aug-18	Debit Note	2 49174
Total Aug 18	2 49174
Sep-18	Debit Note	11188 353
Invoice 3	142 06 722
Total Sept 18	2 53 95 075
Grand Total	3 98 50 972

The said excess payment of tax is required to be adjusted against the GST short paid of ₹ 1,06,898/-, thereby total excess payment of tax in the present case is ₹ 3,97,44,074/-.(i.e. ₹ 3,98,50,972/-minus ₹ 1,06,898/-).

3.14 The present Refund claim was restricted to excess payment of tax made in September-2018 amounting to ₹ 2,53,95,075/-. A separate refund claim in Form RFD-01 for excess payment of tax made for ₹ 1,40,99,824/-  in the month of June-2018 and for ₹ 2,49,174/- made in the month of August, 2018 has been filed separately. Accordingly, the said two separate refund claims are subject matter of two separate Appeals being filed simultaneously.

3.15 From the aforesaid reply to the Show Cause Notice, it is clear that the Appellants have not adjusted Credit Notes in their GST Returns and therefore refund claimed for excess payment of tax, is in order. The errors primarily are due to the following reason :

3.16 Excess payment of tax is on account of upload of Debit Note and Invoice THREE in GSTR-3B of September, 2018 on which GST of ₹ 2,53,95,075/- was paid additionally.

3.17 The Appellants first time paid GST of ₹ 1,40,99,825/- for the disputed supply covered by 23 B2C invoices and this factum was duly reflected in both GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B filed for the period from August to October, 2017. This is manifestly self-evident and apodictic.

3.18 Second time, the Appellants inadvertently paid GST of ₹ 1,42,06,722/- by considering Invoice TWO as additional liability in GSTR-3B of June, 2018. As explained in the forgoing paras, it is reiterated that in order to rectify the mistake of having issued invoices wrongly in the name of RITES LTD instead of MOHFW, the Appellant issued Invoice-TWO being 23 B2C GST invoices in the name of MOHFW with GST of ₹ 1,42,06,722/-. Quite apparently, these Invoice-TWO ought to have been reflected only in GSTR-1 but inadvertently, they were also considered as additional duty liability in GSTR-3B of June, 2018. This misunderstanding or rather human error resulted into double payment of GST which is sought to be refunded as excess payment in respect of the second time payment.

3.19 As Invoice-TWO was nullified by issuance of Credit Note THREE, another set of 23 B2C Invoices were issued in September, 2018 with taxable value of ₹ 11,83,89,351/- and with GST of ₹ 1,42,06,722/-, being referred as Invoice-THREE. The said Invoice-THREE was duly disclosed in the GSTR-1 return of September, 2018, but it was also wrongly considered as liability in corresponding GSTR-3B return, thereby leading to the excess GST payment of ₹ 1,42,06,772/- in the month of September, 2018.

3.20 Thus, for the supply made during the period August, 2017 to October, 2017, interspersed by multiple inadvertent errors, three sets of Invoices, (i.e. Invoice ONE, Invoice-TWO and Invoice-THREE), one Debit Note and three Credit Notes, (i.e. Credit Note-ONE, Credit Note- TWO and Credit Note- THREE) were issued against the same supply. It may be stated that, as a Debit Note is as good as an invoice, there were, in effect, four invoices issued. All these invoices were reported correctly in the respective GSTR-1 returns along with all the three Credit Notes. However, in the whole episode, a crucial inadvertence crept in because of GST on all the four sets of invoices (including one Debit Note) having been considered in the corresponding GSTR-3B returns leading to actual payment of GST each time and with the net effect of excess payment of GST of ₹ 3,98,50,972/.

3.21 That the appellant has submitted that the learned Adjudicating Authority has failed to appreciate that:

(a) The GST liability on account of the 23 GST invoices issued for the supply made during the relevant period was ₹ 1,42,06,722/-, and against this, the Appellant did pay GST amounting to ₹ 1,40,99,825/- after reflecting the same in, and duly borne out by, the statutorily prescribed Form GSTR-1 and Form GSTR-3B for the relevant period. This fact is neither deniable nor denied in the impugned Order.

(b) Further, as explained comprehensively in the Appellant’s SCN reply dated 22.8.2020, there were some inadvertent errors in 23 GST Invoices originally issued. These errors were supposed to be rectified by way of GST Credit Notes and fresh GST Invoices. However, these adjustments were required only in the Form GSTR-1, and not in the Form GSTR-3B of the subsequent tax period, as there was, admittedly, no error in the GST portion.

(c) Furthermore, the Credit Note ONE and Credit Note TWO were duly issued and uploaded in Form GSTR -1 alone. The fresh set of GST Invoices, i.e. Debit Note and Invoice THREE were also uploaded correctly in Form GSTR-1. However, the Debit Note and the Invoice THREE were also wrongly uploaded in form GSTR-3B of September, 2018, leading to EXCESS PAYMENT OF GST OF ₹ 2,53,95,075/- IN FORM GSTR-3B OF SEPTEMBER, 2018.

(d) Accordingly, the excess payment of GST in the present Refund Claim is on account of upload of Debit Note and Invoice THREE in GSTR-3B of September 2018 on which GST of ₹ 2,53,95,075/- was paid additionally and erroneously.

3.22 THAT the learned Adjudicating Authority has, in view of the foregoing explanation and ground, erred in concluding that the excess payment of tax has been compensated, inasmuch as the excess payment of tax occurred inadvertently while filing Form GSTR-3B of June, 2018 vide Invoice TWO. The learned Adjudicating Authority has further overlooked, and not even considered the fact that as regards the respective GST Credit Notes (Credit Note THREE), which were issued only for adjustments in the Form GSTR-1 were not considered in Form GSTR-3B. Hence issuance of these Credit Notes does not detract from the irrefragable position that there was duplication in payment of GST twice over. Significantly, neither the relevant SCN nor the impugned Order repudiates the factum of credit Note THREE being not considered in Form GSTR-3B.

3.23 THAT the learned Adjudicating Authority has erred in arriving at an unsustainable conclusion that the Appellants are not entitled for the refund, without even appreciating and ascertaining the factual aspect that the Appellants have not adjusted Credit Notes in their GST Returns and therefore refund is claimed for excess payment of tax. In other words, when the tax payable is not reduced by the amount of tax shown in the credit notes, the net effect is that the total tax payable is paid as per the liability. This is a fundamental aspect of basic accounting treatment which needs no further elaboration. In such a situation, the Appellants are entitled to claim refund of excess paid tax in terms of Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017.

3.24 THAT the learned Adjudicating Authority has grossly erred by asserting that in case of adjustment / utilization of Credit Notes, tax liability may be adjusted subject to time limit and conditions as per Section 34 (2) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Circular No: 72/46/2018-GST, dated 26.10.2018.

In this context, it is submitted as under:

(i) Sub-section 2 of Section 34 of the CGST Act, 2017, deals with a situation when the Credit Note is declared in the Return for the month during which such credit note has been issued, for the purpose of reduction of tax liability on supplies made. In the instant case, the Appellants have not made such adjustment of tax liability and therefore it amounted to excess payment of tax.

(ii) Circular No.72/46/2018-GST, dated 26-10-2018 has been issued in the matter of procedure in respect of return of time expired drugs or medicines. This Circular is of no use or relevance while dealing with the present case of actual excess payment of tax;

(iii) Various kinds of refunds may arise under different provisions of GST law, which inter alia, include “Excess payment due to mistake or otherwise”.

3.25 THAT the learned Adjudicating Authority has failed to appreciate that, as per Notification No.16/2020-Central Tax, dated 23-3-2020, sub-rule (4A) has been inserted in Rule 86 of the CGST Rules, 2017 which reads as under :

(4A) Where a registered person has claimed refund of any amount paid as tax wrongly paid or paid in excess for which debit has been made from the electronic credit ledger, the said amount, if found admissible, shall be recredited to the electronic credit ledger by the proper officer by an order made in FORM GST PMT-03.”

The aforesaid amendment, with reference to payment through Electronic Credit Ledger”, has also been explained in C.B.I.&C. Circular No. 135/05/2020-GST, dated 31-3-2020.

It is, therefore, submitted that the Government recognizes the fact that there can be issues related to excess payment of tax due to various reasons, and such excess payment of tax is to be refunded. The impugned Order is, therefore, in conflict with the specific directions/instructions of the Board.

3.26 THAT the learned Adjudicating Authority has committed a serious error in holding that liability may be adjusted subject to time limit and conditions as per Section 34 (2) of the CGST Act, 2017. It is submitted that these provisions apply to credit notes issued under the following situations:

(i) where one or more tax invoices have been issued for supply of any goods or services or both and the taxable value or tax charged in that tax invoice is found to exceed the taxable value or tax payable in respect of such supply, or

(ii) where the goods supplied are returned by the recipient, or

(iii) where goods or services or both supplied are found to be deficient.

The present case of the Appellants is not a case of refund claim arising as a result of any of the above specified reasons; and, therefore, the condition that the Appellants need to “declare the details of such credit note in the return for the month during which such credit note has been issued but not later than September following the end of the financial year in which such supply was made, or the date of furnishing of the relevant annual return, whichever is earlier”, is not applicable. Therefore the time limit of 2 years apply as per Section 54 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017.

Moreover, such time limit is for the purpose of “adjustment of tax liability”. The Appellants case is that the tax has been paid in excess and needs to be refunded and therefore not this is a case of adjustment of tax liability.

3.27 THAT the learned Adjudicating Authority has failed to appreciate that firstly it was incumbent upon him, as a part of his quasi-judicial function and responsibility, to ascertain, with due application of mind, and after scrutiny of the relevant records whether or not there is, as claimed by the Appellant with documentary evidence, any duplicity of payment of GST. Once this is ascertained, and if found true that there is duplicity of payment of GST, it is per force of law a bounden duty of the Adjudicating Authority, acting as quasi-judicial authority, to immediately refund without delay or demur, the excess payment of GST. Article 265 of the Constitution of India mandates that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law.

3.28 The appellant has cited below mentioned case laws in their defence which are as under:-

The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Hindustan Sugar Mills Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1981 SC 1681

Shiv Shanker Dal Mills reported in AIR 1980 SC 1037

4. Personal Hearing in the case was held on 05.02.2021 through video conference, wherein, Shri Subramanyam Kaza, Authorized Representative of the appellant, appeared for personal hearing and explained the case in detail and reiterated the submission already made in the grounds of appeal. Further, he stated that, will send a summary of grounds of appeal through email. In view of above, he requested for early decision.

5. Shri Sunil Kumar authorized representative (duly authorized by the appellant) vide his letter dated 08.03.2021 has submitted GSTR-1 returns for August, 2017 to Oct. 2017, June, 2018, August, 2018 and Sept.2018, copy of sample invoices, debit notes and credit notes issued, excel statement regarding the details of set of invoice 01, Invoice 02 and invoice 03, debit note, credit not 01, credit note 2 and credit note 3. He has further submitted that they have reported one credit note having IGST liability of ₹ 1,53,594/- in the GSTR-1 return for the month of October, 2018 and the same has not been reported in the GSTR 3 B return of October, 2018.

6. The Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division-A, Jaipur has been requested to submit comments on ground of appeals, who vide her letter C. No. IV(16)499/Misc./GSTRFD/2018/Pt-I dated 10.03.2021 has submitted following comments-

“(i) The taxpayer issued invoice No.1 to M/s RITES of taxable value ₹ 11,74,98,541/- and GST ₹ 1,40,99,825/- and also issued Debit Note of taxable value ₹ 9,53,12,728/- and GST ₹ 1,14,37,527/- . In this regard they issued Credit Note No.1 and 2 of that much of amount to negate effect of invoice and debit Note. The taxpayer further issued invoices No.2 in the name of MOHFW of taxable value of ₹ 11,83,89,351/- and GST ₹ 1,42,06,722/-. They mentioned wrong place of supply in the invoice, therefore, they issued credit Note 3 against invoice No.2. Thereafter they issued invoice No.3 to MOHFW of the same value and GST (Credit Note No.1, 2 & 3 and invoice No.1, 2 & 3 are as mentioned in the appeal).

(ii) Further, the taxpayer, reported credit notes involved GST amount of ₹ 3,98,70,298/- in GSTR-1 of Sept.,2018 but from GSTR-3B of Sept.,2018, it appears that they did not adjust liability as per Section 34(2) of the CGST Act, 2017.

(iii) In view of above, the taxpayer has not paid excess tax as they have issued credit notes to negate the effect of invoices/ debit note issued wrongly.

(iv) Copies of GSTR-3B downloaded from the portal for the month of August 2017 to October, 2017 and June 2018 to October 2018 are enclosed herewith. Further GSTR-1 returns do not download from portal, ……….”

7.  I have carefully gone through the case records and submission made in the appeal memorandums as well as oral submissions made at the time of personal hearing and comments of the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner and copy of GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B returns. I find that the adjudicating authority has rejected the refund claims and passed the impugned Orders in Original all dated 01.09.2020 that the tax payer has not paid excess tax as they did not adjust the liability as per Section 34 (2) of CGST Act, 2017 and they have issued credit notes to negate the effect of invoices/ debit note issued wrongly.

8. I find that the issues involved in the present case for consideration are (i) whether the appellant factually paid GST twice over, and if it is so, whether there is lawful bar or any impediment under procedural law, to justify oppugning of the refund claims. (ii) Whether the Appellant entitle to claim refund of excess paid tax in terms of Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017.

9. I find that the appellant issued invoice No.1 to M/s RITES of taxable value ₹ 11,74,98,541/- and GST ₹ 1,40,99,825/- and also issued Debit Note of taxable value ₹ 9,53,12,728/- and GST ₹ 1,14,37,527/- . In this regard they issued Credit Note No.1 and 2 of that much of amount to negate effect of invoice and debit Note. The appellant further issued invoices No.2 in the name of MOHFW of taxable value of ₹ 11,83,89,351/- and GST ₹ 1,42,06,722/-. The appellant mentioned wrong place of supply in the invoice, therefore, the appellant issued credit Note 3 against invoice No.2. Thereafter the appellant issued invoice No.3 to MOHFW of the same value and GST.

10. Further I find that in this case, the appellant has issued 3 Credit notes and one debit note, therefore this case is covered under the provisions of Section 34 of the CGST Act, 2017. Further I find that the appellant has reported credit notes involved GST amount of ₹ 3,98,70,298/- in GSTR-1 of Sept.,2018 (which has been filed after 30.09.2018) but from GSTR-3B of Sept.,2018, it appears that they did not adjust liability as per Section 34(2) of the CGST Act, 2017.

For easy reference provisions of Section 34 (1) and (2) of the CGST Act, 2017-

“34(1) Where a tax invoice has been issued for supply of any goods or services to exceed the taxable value or tax charged in that tax invoice is found to exceed the taxable value or tax payable in respect of such supply , or where the goods supplied are returned by the recipient, or where goods or services or both supplied are found to be deficient, the registered person, who has supplied such goods or services or both, may issue to the recipient a credit note containing such particulars as may be prescribed.

34 (2) – Any registered person who issues a credit note in relation to a supply of goods or services or both shall declare the details of such credit note in the return for the month during which such credit note has been issued but not later than September following the end of the financial year in which such supply was made, or the date of furnishing, the relevant annual return, whichever is earlier, and the tax liability shall be adjusted in such manner as may be prescribed.

Provided that no reduction in output tax liability of the supplier shall be permitted, if the incidence of tax and interest on such supply has been passed on to any other person.”

In this case, more than one invoices/ debit note and credit notes have been issued for one supply of goods and the taxable value or tax has been charged in that tax invoice found to exceed the taxable value or tax payable in respect of the such supply. Therefore this case is covered under conditions mentioned under Section 34 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017.

The similar issue has been dealt by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, New Delhi vide Circular NO.137/07/2020-GST dated 13.04.2020, wherein it has been clarified (there are other points also)that-

S. NO.	Issue	Clarification
1.	An advance is received by a supplier for a service contract which subsequently got cancelled. The supplier has issued the invoice before supply of service and paid the GST thereon. Whether he can claim refund of tax paid or is he required to adjust his tax liability in his returns?	In case GST is paid by the supplier on advances received for a future event which got cancelled subsequently and for which invoice is issued before supply of service, the supplier is required to issue a “credit note” in terms of section 34 of the CGST Act. He shall declare the details of such credit notes in the return for the month during which such credit note has been issued. The tax liability shall be adjusted in the return subject to conditions of section 34 of the CGST Act. There is no need to file a separate refund claim. However, in cases where there is no output liability against which a credit note can be adjusted, registered persons may proceed to file a claim under “Excess payment of tax, if any” through FORM GST RFD-01.

From the above legal provisions and factual position, it is clear that liability may be adjusted subject to time limit and conditions as per provisions of Section 34 (2) of the CGST, Act, 2017. From the above legal provisions of Section 34 (2) ibid, the appellant was required to adjust the tax liability from amount of credit note in GST return of that month in which month credit note has been issued and not later than September, 2018 (following the end of the financial year) in which such supply was made, or the date of furnishing, the relevant annual return, whichever is earlier, and the tax liability shall be adjusted in such manner as may be prescribed. Therefore, the appellant should adjust the tax liability in the GST return for the month of June, 2018, August, 2018 and September, 2018, but the appellant has failed to do so, therefore, he is not entitled to claim refund as it is not a case of excess payment of tax. I hold accordingly.

11. Regarding issue whether the Appellant entitle to claim refund of excess paid tax in terms of Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017, I find that in this case 3 credit notes/ one debit note has been issued for value and GST amount against one supply of goods, therefore it is covered under the provisions of Section 34 of CGST Act, 2017 and the appellant was required to adjust such excess payment of tax in GST returns of those particular month (s). Therefore, this case is not related to refund of excess payment of tax as per provisions of Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017. I hold accordingly.

12. The appellant has submitted the Adjudicating Authority has failed to appreciate that, as per Notification No.16/2020-Central Tax, dated 23-3- 2020, sub-rule (4A) has been inserted in Rule 86 of the CGST Rules, 2017 which reads as under :

“(4A) Where a registered person has claimed refund of any amount paid as tax wrongly paid or paid in excess for which debit has been made from the electronic credit ledger, the said amount, if found admissible, shall be recredited to the electronic credit ledger by the proper officer by an order made in FORM GST PMT-03.”

In this regard, I find that this case is related to issuance of Credit notes and adjustment of amount of GST involved in these Credit notes, therefore there is no relevancy of insertion of sub-rule 4 A in Rule 86 of CGST Rules, 2017 (Electronic Credit ledger) and I hold accordingly.

13.(i) The appellant has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Hindustan Sugar Mills Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1981 SC 1681. On going through the above case, I find that it relates to payment the amount of sales tax on the freight component of the price of Cement, therefore, it is not relevant to the instant case.

13 (ii)The appellant has also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Shiv Shanker Dal Mills reported in AIR 1980 SC 1037. On going through the above case, I find that it relates to excess collection of 1% fees by market committees, therefore, it is not relevant to the instant case.

14. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed off in the above manner.