This appeal has been filed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 by M/s Sigma Electric Manufacturing Corporation Private Ltd., A-134-136, Road No. 12, Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur-302013 (hereinafter also referred to as “the appellant”) against the Order-in-original No. JPR/DIV-A/FINAL/511 dated 28.11.2019 (hereinafter called as “the impugned order”) passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax Division-A, C.P. -21,22,23 Road No. 1D, VKI Area, Jaipur (hereinafter called as “the adjudicating authority”).

2.  BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

2.1  The appellant having GSTIN No.08AAXCS4352FIZW is a 100% Export Oriented Unit engaged in export of goods has filed a refund claim of 3,64,85,814/-  manually prepared in Form GST RFD-01A (as a revised application of refund claim) under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 of unutilized ITC (Inputs & Input Services) available in their electronic credit ledger on account of zero rated supplies (i.e. export) made without payment of IGST during the period of October to December-2017.

2.2  During the scrutiny of refund claim filed by the appellant, the adjudicating authority has observed that the said refund claim for the period October-2017 to December-2017, the appellant has already filed their claim online vide ARN No.AA0811176066919 for the period October 2017 to November-2017 for ₹ 0.00 and vide ARN No.AA081217780023B for the period of December-2017 for ₹ 1,77,03,367/- and filed again physically for the same period as revised claim. Further, on being asked by the adjudicating authority, the appellant submitted that earlier there was no facility to file refund claim on quarterly basis, due to which they could not claim the input tax credit accumulated during the period of October-2017 to November-2017, as during this period no export was made by the appellant. After taking into consideration their defence reply, the adjudicating authority has rejected their refund claim of ₹ 3,64,85,814/- as confirmed vide RFD-06 dated 28.11.2019.

3.  Being aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellant has filed the appeal for the refund claim of ₹ 1,87,82,447/-  (CGST ₹ 30,31,680/- + SGST ₹ 30,31,680/-  + IGST ₹ 1,27,19,087/- ) on the following grounds which may be summarized as under:-

• that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id Dy Commissioner, GST Div-A, Jaipur is wrong, unjust and erred in law and without consideration of fact rejecting revised claim of refund made manually for ITC of ₹ 1,87,82,347/-  remained unclaimed due to technical reason of GSTIN.

4.  Personal Hearing in the case was held on 10.09.2020 through video conference wherein Sh. Shambhu Lal Gupta, Chartered Accountant on behalf of the appellant appeared, for personal hearing through video conference. He explained the case in details and reiterated the submissions already made in their grounds of appeal and argued that they are eligible for refund and further requested to decide the case at the earliest.

5.  I have carefully gone through the case records and submission made in the appeal memorandum. I find that the adjudicating authority has rejected the refund claim filed by the appellant and held that the appellant has already filed their refund claim for the period October-2017 to December-2017 online vide ARN No.AA0811176066919 for the period October-2017 to November-2017 for ₹ 0.00 and vide ARN No.AA081217780023B for  the period of December-2017 for ₹ 1,77,03,367/- and filed again physically for the same period as revised claim.

6.  Circular No.110/29/2019-GST, dated 03rd October 2019 issued by CBIC, wherein the detailed procedure has been specified in Para 3 in respect of cases where the assessee failed to file the refund claim for any period, which reads as under:-

“3. It is now clarified that a registered person who has filed a NIL refund claim in FORM GST RFD-01A/RFD-01 for a given period under a particular category, may again apply for refund for the said period under the same category only if he satisfies the following two conditions :

(a)  The registered person must have filed a NIL refund claim in FORM GST RFD-01A/RFD-01 for a certain period under a particular category; and

(b)  No refund claims in FORM GST RFD-01A/RFD-01 must have been filed by the registered person under the same category for any subsequent period.

It may be noted that condition (b) shall apply only for refund claims falling under the following categories .

(i)  Refund of unutilized input tax credit (ITC) on account of exports without payment of tax;

(ii)  Refund of unutilized ITC on account of supplies made to SEZ Unit/SEZ Developer without payment of tax;

(iii)  Refund of unutilized ITC on account of accumulation due to inverted tax structure;

In all other cases, registered persons shall be allowed to re-apply even if the condition (b) is not satisfied.

7.  The appellant was required to file refund claim online in terms of Circular No.17/17/2017-GST dated 15.11.2017 and 24/24/2017-GST dated 21.12.2017 which provides that every refund should be filed online on common portal but the appellant has failed to file their claim online.

8.  T find that the Appellant has not followed the proper procedure, as laid down in the above circulars dated 15.11.2017 and 27.12.2017 respectively (supra), as they have filed the refund claim manually instead of online.

Further, I find that appellant has filed the said refund claim as revised claim in respect of the refund claims already filed vide ARN No.AA0811176066919 for the period of October-2017 to November-2017 for ₹ 0.00 and ARN No.AA081217780023B for the period of December 2017 for ₹ 1,77,03,367/-. Whereas, as per condition (b) of Circular No.110/29/2019-GST dated 03.10.2019 that “No refund claims in Form GST RFD-01A/RFD-01 must have been filed by the registered person under the same category for any subsequent period”. Thus, appellant has not satisfied the condition (b) of the said circular. I do not find force in the contention of the appellant. They are not eligible for refund and I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the adjudicating authority.

9.  In view of the above legal provision and discussions and findings, I hereby reject the appeal filed by the appellant.