Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1967 (GUJ)

FORD INDIA PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA

2024-10-22

BHARGAV D.KARIA, D.N.RAY

body2024
JUDGMENT : BHARGAV D. KARIA, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Anand Nainawati for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Nikunt K. Raval for the respondents. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Nikunt Raval waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondents. 3. Having regard to the controversy in narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matters are taken up for hearing. 4. Both the petitions are raising common issue and hence, the same are disposed of by this common Judgment and Order. 5. The petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the Orders-in-Appeal dated 19th February, 2019 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & CE, Ahmedabad and the consequential Order-in-Original dated 29th April, 2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Ahemdabad-North and show-cause notice dated 15.10.2020 for giving effect to the Order-in- Appeal. 6. The brief facts of the case are as under. 6.1. The petitioner is engaged in business of manufacture and supply of passenger cars, parts, components and engines thereof. The petitioner also exports goods without payment of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (for short ‘the IGST’) under the Letter of Undertaking (for short ‘the LUT’) in terms of Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the IGST Act’). 6.2. It is the case of the petitioner that prior to the coming into force the Goods and Service Tax regime, the petitioner was registered under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and was discharging appropriate central excise duty on clearance of final products from its factory premises. For use in the manufacture of final products, the petitioner was procuring various inputs and input services with respect to which, the petitioner availed the Central Value Added Tax Credit (for short ‘the CENVAT Credit’) in terms of Central Value Added Tax Credit Rules, 2004. 6.3. Comming into force of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the CGST Act’) with effect from 1st July, 2017, the petitioner was entitled to carry forward the CENVAT Credit of Rs.1,63,15,92,468/- into the GST regime in accordance with Section 140 of the CGST Act read with Rule 117 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (for short ‘the CGST Rules’) by filing Form GST TRAN-1 declaration. The petitioner had supplied passenger cars, parts, components and engines to the customers located in India and abroad during the relevant period from July, 2017 to September, 2017 and received various inputs and input services by way of Input Tax Credit (for short ‘the ITC’). The petitioner also filed requisite return in Form GSTR-3B during the relevant period. 6.4. The petitioner availed the ITC for payment of the GST for three months’ period i.e. from July, 2017 to September, 2017 as under: Period ITC availed Credit Utilized IGST CGST SGST IGST CGST SGST July 2017 1,36,86,453 1,82,82,318 1,82,82,318 1,36,86,453 towards IGST 2,19,38,492 towards CGST and 64,68,10,149 towards IGST 1,82,82,3 18 towards SGST August, 2017 39,81,78,094 10,99,67,378 10,99,67,378 39,81,78,094 towards IGST 1,79,83,468 towards CGST and 1,29,12,051 towards IGST 1,79,83,4 68 towards SGST September, 2017 76,58,08,834 30,18,80,220 30,18,80,220 47,11,71,982 towards IGST 3,63,40,644 towards CGST 3,63,40,6 44 towards SGST 6.5. For the month of July, 2017, the petitioner had completely utilised the IGST and State GST Credit availed for payment of tax, however, with respect to payment of Central GST liability through available ITC, the petitioner discharged it by utilising available transitional credit. 6.6. For the month of August, 2017, the petitioner completely utilised the IGST Credit availed in the said month for payment of tax and with respect to CGST and SGST liability, the same was discharged through utilisation of ITC pertaining to CGST and SGST respectively and subsequently, to payment of GST by utilising the ITC during the aforesaid period, the petitioner possessed accumulated credit of CGST and SGST in the month of August, 2017 in the Electronic Credit Ledger. 6.7. For the month of September, 2017, subsequent to utilisation of the ITC for payment of tax, the petitioner had accumulated IGST, SGST and CGST Credit. 6.8. During the aforesaid period, the petitioner also opted to export the goods manufactured without payment of IGST under the LUT and therefore, the ITC for the said period was accumulated and consequently, the petitioner filed refund claim of accumulated ITC under Section 54 of the CGST Act read with Section 16 of the IGST Act for each month as under: Month Integrated Tax (in Rs.) Central Tax (in Rs.) State/UT Tax (in Rs.) Total (in Rs.) July 2017 82,45,674 1,10,14,544 1,10,14,544 3,02,74,762 August 2017 24,22,46,089 6,69,02,644 6,69,02,644 37,60,51,377 September 2017 76,58,08,834 30,18,80,220 30,18,80,220 136,95,69,274 6.9. The respondent No. 6-Assistant Commissioner, CGST sanctioned the refund by separate orders dated 3rd May, 2018 for July, 2017, 16th May, 2018 for August, 2017 and 31st May, 2018 for September, 2017 in Form GST RFD- 06 which was inclusive of provisional refund amount initially sanctioned to the petitioner. The details of the orders are as under: Final refund order/RFD-06 Tax period IGST (In Rs) CGST (In Rs) SGST (in Rs) Total in Rs) Order No. No. 007/Final/ 2018-19 dated 03.05.2018 July 2017 76,45,397 1,02,12,695 1,02,12,695 2,80,70,787 Order No. 0008/Final/2018-19 dated 16.05.2018 August 2017 24,15,27,719 6,67,04,247 6,67,04,247 37,49,36,213 Order No. 0015/ Final/ 2018-19 dated 16.05.2018 September 2017 55,84,90,249 22,05,30,28 6 22,05,30,28 6 99,95,50,821 6.10. It is the case of the petitioner that after passing of the above refund sanctioning Orders and issuance of payment advise and realisation by respondent No. 6, the petitioner received the letters dated 09.07.2018 and 23.07.2018 in respect of the queries raised by the Audit Headquarters of the respondents on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible to claim the refund for the respective months by utilising the transitional credit as on 01.07.2017. 6.11. The respondent No. 4-Commissioner CGST & Central Excise passed the Review Order and directed the respondent No. 6-Assistant Commissioner, CGST to prefer Appeals before the respondent No. 5 praying for setting aside the refund sanctioning Orders. The respondent No. 6 accordingly preferred Appeals before the respondent No. 5 challenging the refund sanctioning Orders on the ground that the petitioner did not have any unutilised ITC ignoring the transitional credit in the Electronic Credit Ledger of the petitioner and therefore it was contended that the sanction of the refund was required to be withdrawn in absence of any unutilised ITC under the IGST, CGST and SGST Head in the Electronic Credit Ledger. 6.12. The respondent No. 5-Commissioner (Appeals) by the impugned order dated 19th February, 2019 quashed and set aside the orders sanctioning the refund and confirmed the recovery of the refund along with the interest as under and accordingly, the Appeals were allowed: Months IGST (In INR) CGST (In INR) SGST (In INR) July 2017 76,45,397 1,02,12,695 1,02,12,695 August 2017 24,15,27,719 NIL NIL September 2017 26,38,53,397/- NIL NIL 6.13. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this petition being Special Civil Application No. 19453 of 2021. 6.14. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this petition being Special Civil Application No. 19453 of 2021. 6.14. Subsequent to the passing of Order-in- Appeal, the respondent issued an intimation of demand of tax dues vide pre-show cause notice consultation through letter dated 28.07.2020 which was duly replied by the petitioner. Thereafter, the show-cause notice dated 15.10.2020 was issued by the respondent No. 5 proposing to recover the amount of refund sanctioned for the aforesaid tax period along with interest. The petitioner filed reply to the show-cause notice stating that the Order-in-Appeal has yet to attain finality and therefore, recovery proceedings pursuant to the same cannot be initiated, however, the show-cause notice was adjudicated by the Order-in-Original dated 29th April, 2021 confirming the recovery of the refund of Rs.53,34,51,903/- under Section 73 of the CGST Act with interest. 6.15. The petitioner by letter dated 08.09.2021 requested the respondent No. 5 not to initiate any proceedings for coercive recovery as the petitioner did not have any opportunity of preferring the Appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 19th February, 2019 and the petitioner is in process of preferring the Writ Petition before this Court, however, ignoring such request, the respondent No. 5 by letter dated 05.10.2021 directed the petitioner to immediately pay the amount alleged to be erroneously refunded along with interest. By reply dated 14.10.2021, the petitioner again requested that due to non-constitution of the GST Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner was not able to file Appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 19th February, 2019 and therefore, no coercive recovery to be made from the petitioner. 6.16. The petitioner has therefore, being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original dated 29th April, 2021 and the show-cause notice dated 15.10.2021 issued by the respondent has preferred the Special Civil Application No. 19488 of 2021. 7.1. Learned advocate Mr. Anand Nainawati for the petitioner submitted that the impugned Order-in-Appeal as well as the Order-in-Original and show-cause notice are liable to be quashed and set aside as the orders sanctioning the refund are in accordance with the provisions of the CGST Act as the petitioner was entitled to utilise the transitional CENVAT Credit which was available in the Electronic Credit Ledger as on 01.07.2017 as per the Form GST TRAN-1 filed by the petitioner. It was submitted that the respondent-authorities have adopted a hyper-technical approach of not permitting the petitioner to utilise the credit which was available by way of transitional CENVAT Credit as the credit was not made on 28th August, 2017 and the same was made subsequently on process of the Form GST TRAN-I. It was therefore submitted that such credit would relate back to the date of 1st July, 2017 and accordingly, the petitioner could not have been prevented or deprived of utilising the said credit for payment of the GST for the month of July, 2017 as the petitioner was entitled to utilise such credit. 7.2. It was further submitted that the issue is no more res-integra in view of the decision of this Court in case of M/s. Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited versus Union of India and Others in Special Civil Application No. 12712 of 2019 rendered on 10th January, 2024 which was followed in case of M/s. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited versus Union of India and Others in Special Civil Application No. 17988 of 2019 and other allied matters rendered on 14th June, 2024. 7.3. Learned advocate Mr. Anand Nainavati also has filed the details of the Orders for three months while sanctioning the refund to the petitioner as under to demonstrate that the original Adjudicating Authority after considering the provisions of Section 140 of the CGST Act has sanctioned the refund by considering the CENVAT Credit which was carried forward by the petitioner in the Form GST TRAN-1. 8. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Nikunt Raval for the respondents could not controvert the fact of the case that the petitioner had transitional CENVAT credit as per the Form GST TRAN-1 which was processed on 28th August, 2017 and such credit would relate back as on the opening day of coming into force of the GST i.e. on 01.07.2017 and accordingly, the petitioner was justified in claiming the refund under Section 54 of the CGST Act for un-utilised credit for the months of July, 2017, August, 2017 and September, 2017 and it was submitted that the issue is no more res-integra in view of the decision cited by learned advocate for the petitioner. 9. 9. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the facts of the case, the issue in this petitions pertaining to un-utilised ITC after considering the CENVAT credit as per the Form GST TRAN-1 is no more res-integra in view of the decision in case of M/s. Torrent Pharmaceuticals (Supra) wherein, it is held as under: “6. The issue arising in these petitions pertaining to the refund of unutilized ITC of zero rated supplies of the petitioners is already considered and decided by the order of even date in Special Civil Application No. 12712 of 2019 wherein it is held as under: “13. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the facts of the case, short question which arises for consideration in this petition is whether the transitional credit as per the form Trans-1 filed by the petitioner and accepted by the department can be considered as an opening balance in electronic credit ledger as unutilized ITC available for granting refund as per the provisions of Section 54 (3) of the CGST Act to the petitioner as per per the claim made by the petitioner in form RFD-01A. 14. It would, therefore, we germane to refer to the various provisions of CGST Act. 1. Zero-rated supply” has been defined under Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax, 2017 (IGST), which reads as under: “Section 16. Zero rated supply: (1) “zero rated supply” means any of the following supplied of goods or services or both, namely: (a) export of goods or services or both. 1. Zero-rated supply” has been defined under Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax, 2017 (IGST), which reads as under: “Section 16. Zero rated supply: (1) “zero rated supply” means any of the following supplied of goods or services or both, namely: (a) export of goods or services or both. (b) supply of goods or services or both to a Special Economic Zone developer or a Special Economic Zone unit.” Section 54 of the CGST Act provides for refund of tax sub- Section 3 of Section 54 refers to the of refund of any unutilized input tax credit at the end of tax period, which reads as under: “Section 54 Refund of tax (1) Any person claiming refund of any tax and interest, if any, paid on such tax or any other amount paid by him, may make an application before the expiry of two years from the relevant date in such form and manner as may be prescribed: Provided that a registered person, claiming refund of any balance in the electronic cash ledger in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (6) of section 49, amy claim such refund in the return furnished under section 39 in such manner as may be prescribed. (2)......... (3) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (10), a registered person may claim refund of any unutilised input tax credit at the end of any tax period: Provided that no refund of unutilised input tax credit shall be allowed in cases other than: (i) zero rated supplied made without payment of tax. (ii) where the credit has accumulated on account of rate of tax on inputs being higher than the rate of tax on output supplies (other than nil rated or fully exempted supplies), except supplies of goods or services or both as may be notified by the Government on the recommendations of the Council: Provided further that no refund of unutlised input tax credit shall be allowed in cases where the goods exported out of India are subjected to export duty: Provided also that no refund of input tax credit shall be allowed, if the supplier of goods or services or both avails of drawback in respect of central tax or claims refund of the integrated tax paid on such supplies. (4) The application shall be accompanied by: (a) such documentary evidence as may be prescribed to establish that a refunds due to the applicant. (b) such documentary or other evidence (including the documents referred to in section 33) as the applicant may furnish to establish that the amount of tax and interest, if any, paid on such tax or any other amount paid in relation to which such refund is claimed was collected from, or paid by, him and the incidence of such tax and interest had not been passed on to any other person.” Rule 89. Application for refund of tax, interest, penalty, fees or any other amount: “(4) In the case of zero-rated supply of goods or services or both without payment of tax under bond or letter of undertaking in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (13 of 2017), refund of input tax credit shall be granted as per the following formula: Refund Amount = (Turnover of zero-rated supply of goods + Turnover of zero-rated supply of services) x Net ITC divided by Adjusted Total Turnover Where: (A) “Refund amount” means the maximum refund that is admissible. (B) “Net ITC” means input tax credit availed on inputs and input services during the relevant period. (C) “Turnover of zero-rated supply of goods” means the value of zerorated supply of goods made during the relevant period without payment of tax under bond or letter of undertaking. (D) “Turnover of zero-rated supply of services” means the value of zero-rated supply of services made without payment of tax under bond or letter of undertaking, calculated in the following manner, namely: Zero-rated supply of services is the aggregate of the payments received during the relevant period for zero-rated supply of services and zero-rated supply of services where supply has been completed for which payment had been received in advance in any period prior to the relevant period reduced by advances received for zero-rated supply of services for which the supply of services has not been completed during the relevant period; (E) “Adjusted Total turnover” means the turnover in a State or a Union territory, as defined under clause (112) of section 2, excluding the value of exempt supplies other than zero-rated supplies, during the relevant period. (F) “Relevant period” means the period for which the claim has been filed.” 15. In terms of the above provisions of refund, refund application is required to be filed through electronic portal. Section 168 of the CGST Act empowers the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) to issue such orders, instructions or directions to the Central Tax Officer as deem fit for the purpose of uniformity in the implementation of the CGST Act. The CBIC issued the Circular No. 17/17/2017-GST dated 15.11.2017, whereby it was clarified that the applications/documents/forms pertaining to refund claims on account of zero rated supplies shall be filed and processed manually till further orders, which reads as under: “1.1 ***** 1.2 ***** 1.3 ***** 2.4 The application for refund of unutilized input tax credit on inputs or input services used in making such zero- rated supplies shall be filed in FORM GST RFD-01A on the common portal and the amount claimed as refund shall get debited in accordance with sub-rule (3) of rule 86 of the CGST Rules from the amount in the electronic credit ledger to the extent of the claim. The common portal shall generate a proof of debit (ARN Acknowledgement Receipt Number) which would be mentioned in the FORM GST RFD-01A submitted manually, along with the print out of FORM GST RFD 01A to the jurisdictional proper officer, and with all necessary documentary evidences as applicable (as per details in statement 3 or 5 of Annexure to FORM GST RFD-01), within the time stipulated for filing of such refund under the CGST Act. 2.5 The registered person needs to file the refund claim with the jurisdictional tax authority to which the taxpayer has been assigned as per the administrative order issued in this regard by the Chief Commissioner of Central Tax and the Commissioner of State Tax. In case such an order has not been issued in the State, the registered person is at liberty to apply for refund before the Central Tax Authority or State Tax Authority till the administrative mechanism for assigning of taxpayers to respective authority is implemented. However, in the latter case, an undertaking is required to be submitted stating that the claim for sanction of refund has been made to only one of the authorities. However, in the latter case, an undertaking is required to be submitted stating that the claim for sanction of refund has been made to only one of the authorities. It is reiterated that the Central Tax officers shall facilitate the processing of the refund claims of all registered persons whether or not such person was registered with the Central Government in the earlier regime.” 16. The CBIC thereafter issued a Circular No. 59/23/2018-CGST dated 04.09.2018, whereby it is clarified that measure of the amount of refund, which is eligible to the applicant seeking refund unutilized of credit of ITC on account of zero-rated supply of goods are provided. Relevant formula as prescribed for computing unutilized amount of ITC in Para 3 of the said circular is as under: “3. System validations in calculating refund amount 3.1 Currently, in case of refund of unutilized input tax credit (ITC for short), the common portal calculates the refundable amount as the least of the following amounts: (a) The maximum refund amount as per the formula in rule 89(4) or rule 89(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “CGST Rules”) [formula is applied on the consolidated amount of ITC, i.e. Central tax + State tax/Union Territory tax +Integrated tax+Cess (wherever applicable)]. (b) The balance in the electronic credit ledger of the claimant at the end of the tax period for which the refund claim is being filed after the return for the said period has been filed; and (c) The balance in the electronic credit ledger of the claimant at the time of filing the refund application. 3.2 After calculating the least of the three amounts, as detailed above, the equivalent amount is to be debited from the electronic credit ledger of the claimant in the following order: (a) Integrated tax, to the extent of balance available. (b) Central tax and State tax/Union Territory tax, equally to the extent of balance available and in the event of a shortfall in the balance available in a particular electronic credit ledger (say, Central tax), the differential amount is to be debited from the other electronic credit ledger (i.e., State tax/Union Territory tax, in this case).” 17. The provisions of Goods and Service Tax Act replace the indirect tax regime with effect from 01.07.2017. The provisions of Goods and Service Tax Act replace the indirect tax regime with effect from 01.07.2017. Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 and State Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 and Integrated Goods and Service Tax 2017, were enacted by the legislature which came into effect from 01.07.2017, which intended to subsume all indirect taxes including the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Finance Act, 1994 (Service Tax Act) and Value Added Tax Act. As per the scheme of the GST all the three Acts provide for seamless flow of Input Tax Credit to avoid cascading effect of various taxes. The CGST Act therefore provided the transitional arrangement for carry forward and availment of credit of eligible indirect taxes paid on the Goods & Services under the erstwhile regime. In this regard, Section 140 of the CGST Act is therefore enacted for the transition of the various credit of indirect taxes in different Act as under: “(i) Closing balance of credit of erstwhile taxes in the last return filed prior to the introduction of GST. (ii) Un-availed credit taxes paid on capital goods procured in the erstwhile regime. (iii) Credit of taxes paid on stock of raw materials, work-inprogress and finished goods as on 30.06.2017. (iv) Credit relating to goods exempted under the earlier regime which are taxable under the GST regime. (v) Credit of in transit goods and services on which taxes are paid in the erstwhile regime and such goods and services are received in the GST regime.” 18. Rule 117 of the Rules provides that if a registered person has to claim Transitional Credit under Section 140 of the CGST Act, a declaration in Form GST TRAN-1 was required to be filed within 90 days of the appointed day i.e. on or before 28.09.2017. As per the provisions of Section 140 of the CGST Act read with Rule 117 of the Rules, the transitional credit, closing balance of credit of taxes lying and shown in last return filed by the assessee prior to introduction of CGST i.e. as on 30.06.2017 will be carried forward as credit in Electronic Credit Ledger as on 01.07.2017. in view of the above, GST regime, the credit balance as on of the unutilized input tax credit in earstwhile regime as on 30.06.2017 shall be available as opening balance of unutilized input tax credit as on 01.07.2017. 19. in view of the above, GST regime, the credit balance as on of the unutilized input tax credit in earstwhile regime as on 30.06.2017 shall be available as opening balance of unutilized input tax credit as on 01.07.2017. 19. Therefore, as per provisions of Section 140(1) of the CGST Act, a registered person shall be entitled to take, in his electronic credit ledger, the amount of CENVAT credit of eligible duties carried forward in the return relating to the period ending with the day immediately preceding the appointed day i.e. 01.07.2017. The petitioner, is therefore, entitled to get the benefit of amount of CENVAT credit of eligible duties carried forward in the return in GST Form TRAN-1, which was verified and approved by the GST authority. 20. Therefore, the adjudicating authority has rightly sanctioned the refund to the petitioner considering the closing balance of CENVAT credit carried forward as per GST Form TRAN-1 filed by the petitioner as on 01.07.2017. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) appears to have a very pedantic literal approach of the provisions of Section 54(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 thereby allowed the appeal of the department on the ground that when the petitioner filed refund claim in statement 3A of the GSTRFD- 01A for the months of July and August, 2017, the transitional credit as per form GST TRAN-1 was not verified and was not given effect in the electronic credit ledger and therefore, obviously there cannot be any balance of such unutilized CENVAT credit which was carried forward as on 01.07.2017. Therefore, in effect there was no unutilized ITC credit lying in the balance in respect of the refunds granted. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have given the benefit of transitional CENVAT credit carried forward as per GST TRAN-1 filed by the petitioner and approved by the authority in the month of September, 2017 as if such credit was available as on 01.07.2017 as an opening balance in the electronic credit ledger. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have given the benefit of transitional CENVAT credit carried forward as per GST TRAN-1 filed by the petitioner and approved by the authority in the month of September, 2017 as if such credit was available as on 01.07.2017 as an opening balance in the electronic credit ledger. Reliance placed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on Circular No. 59/33/2018-GST dated 04.09.2018 to the effect that the balance in the electronic ledger of the claimant on the end of the tax period for which, the refund claim is being filed after the return for the said period has been field literally interpreted so far as the first two months of GST regime i.e. July, 2017 and August, 2017, for which there is a provision of Section 140(1) would have direct impact and therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) committed an error by in relying upon Circular No. 59 dated 04.09.2018, which would not be applicable in the facts of the case as the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of carried forward of CENVAT credit as on 01.07.2017 in view of the provisions of Section 140(1) read with Section 54(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 89(4) and 117 of the Rules. 21. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was entitled to the refund on the zero rated supplies and only ground for allowing the appeal of the department by the CIT appeals is that no balance was available in electronic credit ledger as on the date on which the petitioner was entitled to get refund i.e. end of the month i.e. July, 2017 and August, 2017 because the carried forward of CENVAT credit erstwhile regime was approved by the authority in the month of September, 2017. In such circumstances, the petitioner would never be available to utilize the carried forward of CENVAT credit, which would contrary to the provisions of Section 140(1) of the CGST Act. 22. In view of the above analysis and foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 22.03.2019 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is hereby quashed and set aside. As a result, the consequential notice and orders for recovery of the refund sanctioned and paid to the petitioner by the adjudicating authority are also quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.” 7. The impugned order dated 22.03.2019 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is hereby quashed and set aside. As a result, the consequential notice and orders for recovery of the refund sanctioned and paid to the petitioner by the adjudicating authority are also quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.” 7. In view of the above, this petitions adopting the same reasoning succeed and are accordingly allowed. The order dated 07.03.2019 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), show cause notice dated 02.12.2020 and orders in original for recovery dated 16.02.2021 and 07.03.2019 are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.” 10. In view of the above, adopting the same reasoning, these petitions would also succeed and are accordingly allowed. In the facts of the case, the provisions of Section 54 of the CGST Act would be applicable as the respondent-Authorities could not have adopted an hyper-technical approach by depriving the petitioner of the CENVAT credit which was available as on 01.07.2017 on the ground that such credit was reflected in the Electronic Credit Ledger only in the month of August, 2017 on processing of the Form GST TRAN-1. The impugned Orders dated 19th February, 2019 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Order-in-Original dated 29th April, 2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner as well as the show-cause notice dated 15.10.2021 are accordingly quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No orders as to cost.