These two appeals have been filed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) by M/s Syndicate Bank, Communication address : Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Executor Trustee & Taxation Section Financial Management & Subsidiaries Wing-II, Head Office-122, JC Road, Bangalore-560 002 (hereinafter also referred to as the “appellant”) against the against the Orders-in-Original (hereinafter as “the impugned orders”) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax Division-E, Jaipur (hereinafter called as the “adjudicating authority”) as mentioned below. As common issue is involved in both the appeals therefore, I take up the same for decision simultaneously.

2. Brief facts of the case:

2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the appellant having GSTIN:08AACCS4699E2Z0 is engaged mainly in providing Banking and other Financial services. Bank also utilizes various Input Services and avails Input Tax Credit as per stipulated legal provisions. To assess exact outward supplies of a month before 20th of succeeding month for a Bank was a difficult job, during financial year 2017-2018, being the first year of GST implementation. Hence to avoid payment of interest and penalty, Bank had discharged GST more than GST payable. Accordingly, the appellant has filed refund application for the refund claim of ₹ 6,55,787/- for the period December-2017 and ₹ 15,014/- for the month of January-2018 under Section 54(3) of the CGST Act,2017.

3. Further, on examination of refund claims, the adjudicating authority has passed the impugned order dated 20.07.2020 and 21.07.2020 and rejected both the refund claims amounting to ₹ 6,55,787/- and ₹ 15,014/- respectively filed by the appellant on the ground of time barred issue as per Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017 i.e. the refund claim has been filed after the time limit of 2 years.

4. Being aggrieved with the impugned orders, the appellant has filed the appeal against the said orders on the following grounds which may be summarized as under.

The order of the learned Assistant Commissioner is bad in law and against the facts of the case.

2. The learned Assistant Commissioner erred in rejecting Excess IGST discharged of ₹ 6,55,787/- and ₹ 15,014/- punched in GST portal in the month of December 2017, and January -2018 which is but actually part of Bank’s IGST refund claim of ₹ 7,34,851/- for the month of March 2018 u/s 54 of CGST Act, on the ground, “Delay in Refund application“

2. 1. The Learned Assistant Commissioner failed to appreciate the fact that in terms of Circular 26/26/2017-GST dated 29″ December 2017 of GST Policy Wing, CBEC (now CBIC) and also Press Note dated 6 July 2019 issued on Clarification regarding Annual Returns and Reconciliation Statement, Bank has carried over the excess/short to subsequent month during FY2017-18 and at the end of FY2017-18, Bank has crystallized the excess/shortfall and got the same verified by GST Auditor in GSTR 9C and filed the refund claim for the amount excess discharged of ₹ 7,34,851/- as at March 2018.

2.2. The Learned Assistant Commissioner failed to appreciate the fact that due to technical restrictions in GST portal, Bank could not file the refund claim for March 2018 for the exact excess amount discharged under IGST of ₹ 7,34,851/- and was constrained to punch the March 2018 refund claim of ₹ 7,34,851/- in GST portal in months of December 2017 to March 2018 and IGST refund claim of ₹ 6,55,787/- punched for the month of December 2017, is actually part of March 2018 refund claim of ₹ 7,34,851/-.

2.3. The Learned Assistant Commissioner failed to appreciate the fact this refund claim for March 2018 of ₹ 7,34,851/- has been filed well within the due date in terms of Notification 35/2020 dated 3″ April 2020 extended further by Notification 55/2020 and CBIC circular, 137/07/2020 dated 13/04/2020

4. Personal hearing vide this office letter C.No.APPL /JPR /CGST /JP /106/XI/2020/4921 dated 17.03.2021 and APPL/ JPR/ CGST/ JP/106/XI/2020/4924 dated 17.03.2021 in virtual mode through video conference was fixed in both the cases for 24.03.2021.

5. Further, the Authorized Signatory and Chief Manager of the appellant Sh. Girish P Lele instead of attending personal hearing has sent a E mail dated 18.03.2021 as well as letter through Speed Post therein he intimated that “We wish to inform you that we are withdrawing our Appeal against your order dated 20.07.2020 and 21.07.2020 as we found that the refund claim made our Bank is not correct one. Kindly treat our appeals are withdrawn.”

6. In view of the appellant submission, I allow him to withdraw the appeals and accordingly both the appeals are dismissed as withdrawn.