The central legal point established in the judgment is that the denial of refund in respect of Input Tax Credit should be based on valid reasons and evidence, and should not be generalized to all supplies based on the non-existence of one supplier.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an Order dated 05.08.2021, passed by the Adjudicating Authority, rejecting the petitioner's application for refund of the Input Tax Credit (hereafter `ITC') amounting to Rs.76,76,106/-(CGST - Rs.38,38,053/- and SGST Rs.38,38,053/-). The petitioner also impugns an Order-in-Appeal dated 31.05.2022, whereby the petitioner's appeal against the aforesaid Order dated 05.08.2021, was rejected. The said orders are collectively referred to as the `impugned orders'.

2. The petitioner had filed an application dated 21.05.2021 claiming refund of the aforesaid amount of Rs.76,76,106/-, relating to ITC in respect of goods exported during the period November 2020 to March 2021.

3. The filing of the said application was acknowledged by the concerned authority in the requisite form (GST-RFD-02). Thereafter, the Adjudicating Authority issued a Show Cause Notice dated 19.07.2021, proposing to reject the petitioner's claim for the reasons as reproduced below:

4. The petitioner responded to the said Show Cause Notice enclosing therewith details of all the vendors; their respective GSTIN; and the particulars of the invoices.

5. The petitioner, inter alia, claimed that the purchases made were genuine from dealers that were registered.

6. Notwithstanding the above, the Adjudicating Authority rejected the petitioner's application for refund by the impugned order dated 05.08.2021. The Adjudicating Authority found that on verification, one of the suppliers named M/s Siddhi Impex (GSTIN: 07EUOPS8731J1ZR) was found to be non-existent.

7. The impugned order dated 05.08.2021 records that verification was conducted by the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Division Old Delhi, CGST Delhi North and it was informed that on physical verification, the said entity was found to be non-existent at their registered place of business.

8. Based on the aforesaid information, the Adjudicating Authority rejected the petitioner's claim for refund.

9. It is material to note that there was no allegation in respect of any of the other suppliers, the details of which were provided by the petitioner.

10. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. However, as noted above, the petitioner's appeal was rejected by the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 31.05.2022.

11. The said impugned order indicates that the Appellate Authority had considered the details of invoices furnished by the petitioner and had found that two invoices pertained to M/s Siddhi Impex. The ITC in respect of the two invoices amounted to Rs.21,76,260/-(Rs.12,13,872/- + Rs.9,62,388/-). The Appellate Authority noted that the said supplier was found to be non-existent and concluded that the appellant `had not received any input/input services from M/s Siddhi Impex' and had claimed refund fraudulently on the strength of the invoices issued by M/s Siddhi Impex.

12. On the basis of the aforesaid reasoning, the Appellate Authority rejected the petitioner's appeal. There was no allegation regarding any of the other suppliers, the details of which were supplied by the petitioner.

13. Pursuant to the physical verification of M/s Siddhi Impex, the registration of the said supplier was cancelled. The petitioner voluntarily deposited the amount of Rs.21,76,260/-, being the amount of refund claimed in respect of the two invoices of Siddhi Impex, in its electronic credit ledger.

14. Mr. Aseem Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, does not seek to question the decision of the Adjudicating Authority or the Appellate Authority in rejecting the petitioner's claim for refund in respect of the ITC in relation to the supplies received from M/s Siddhi Impex; he has confined his relief to the refund