| Sr No. | Order No. & Date | Name | Category | Breif Issue |
| 1 | GIB/DL/Harish/24.02.2021/AA-3 | Harish N. Salve Vs ACIT | Allows expense on ‘Assistance To Law Students’ | Facts & Issue Of The Case : The assessee is an advocate by profession and derives income from business or profession, house property, capital gains and also income from other sources. During the course of assessments for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee claimed Rs.34,19,730/- for the assessment year 2013-14 and Rs.84,40,301/- for assessment year 2014-15 under the head “Assistance to Law Students”, and when asked, submitted that the assistance paid to law students Diksha Sharma and Krishna Prasad K. V. at Oxford is the justification for such claim. It was further stated by the Assessing Officer that the very same plea was taken by assessee for the assessment year 2014-15 also. |
| 2 | GIB/Jaipur/Baba Super/06.05.2020/AA-2 | M/s Baba Super Mineral Pvt. Ltd. | Refund of Unutilized ITC | Facts & Issue Of The Case : The Appellant M/s Baba Super Mineral Pvt. Ltd. has filed an application against the order in original no. 06/GST/ITC/BSMPL/2018-19 dated 10.12.2018 passed by the Assistant commissioner, CGST Division-B, Jaipur. The appellant filed application for claim of refund of unutilized ITC for the march month. After considering the submission made by appellant, the adjudicating authority found that the claim of part amount of refund was liable to be rejected due to various reason. 1. Address of recipient were missing on tax invoices at the time of filing of refund which are mandatory particulars to be furnished in tax invoice. 2. GSTIN of recipient were missing on tax invoices at the time of filing of refund which are mandatory particulars to be furnished in tax invoice. Thus, the appellant has contravened the provisions the Rule 46 and the notification no. 39/2018-CT, dt. 04.09.2018. Therefore, the order 06/GST/ITC/BSMPL/2018-19 dated 10.12.2018 was issued to the appellant. As per Rule 36(b) of CGST Rules,2017 ITC on invoice inward supply covered under RCM is available at the time of payment of tax and no payment voucher is required for taking ITC. |
| 3 | GIB/Jaipur/Shri Kalyan/13.01.2020/AA-1 | Shri Kalyan Exports | REFUND | Facts & Issue of The Case: The applicant Shri Kalyan Exports is in business of export of goods. He had filed a refund application in prescribed form RFD-01A vide ARN AB08717488409D, dated 04-06-2018 amounting Rs.1,63,210 for refund of unutilized ITC on exports of goods and services without payment of IGST. On Receiving the said application, the Assistant Commissioner issued a deficiency memo (RFD-03) on 15-06-2018 against which applicant submitted reply on 1-07-2018. The said claim was also sent to jurisdictional range officer on 18-07-2018. A verification report through C.No. V(CGST)R-VIII/Refund-KE/3/2018 on 26-07-2018 was submitted by the jurisdictional range officer to the Assistant Commissioner. On the basis of the verification report and records available the Assistant Commissioner issued a SCN RFD-08 V(CGST-B)47/RFD-ITC/Kalyan/18-19/4631 on 10-08-2018 to reply on “why the refund claim of Rs.163210 cannot be rejected on below mentioned reasons: Reason for Rejection Amount inadmissible (Rs.) Undeclared Place of Business 1,63,210/- The appellant in response to SCN filed a written reply on 10-09-2018 stating that the registered place of business and place which is mentioned in export invoices (undeclared address) are owned by him. He also gave clarification that undeclared place of business was not updated on portal due to some omission errors and he has already filed an application on 05-09-2018 for addition of the undeclared place of business as an additional place of business on GST portal. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim vide OIO No. 29/GST/ITC/Kalyan/2018-19 on 12-09-2018 on the ground that the appellant carried out business activity from an undeclared place of business and issued improper tax invoices showing undeclared address The applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order, further filed appeal before Additional Commissioner (Appeals) vide C. No. APPL/JPR/CGST/JP/39/XII/18. |