2019 (6) TMI 1378 - HC - GST

Re-credit of the amount of input tax credit to the electronic credit ledger account - rejection of refund claim - inaction on the part of the respondent authority in not passing an order in accordance with Rule 86(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT - Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, we propose to dispose of this writ application with a direction to both, the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Range-15, Surat as well as to the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Range- 1, Surat to look into the matter and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of writ of this order. The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Range-15, Surat shall see to it that the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Range-1, Surat gives effect to the communication dated 02/11/2018.

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure of the respondent authority to pass order for re-crediting input tax credit.
2. Violation of fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
3. Inaction by the Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner regarding the refund claim.

Analysis:
1. The writ applicant, a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing and trading of paper products, sought relief for the respondent authority's failure to pass orders for re-crediting the rejected amount in the electronic credit ledger for the tax periods of May, June, and July 2018. The applicant contended that the inaction violated Rule 86(4) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and sought a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction for re-crediting the input tax credit.

2. The applicant argued that the failure of the authority to grant credit of input tax even after rejecting the refund claims infringed upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The applicant emphasized the significance of timely re-crediting the input tax credit to maintain compliance with the statutory provisions and protect their constitutional rights.

3. The counsel for the applicant highlighted the representations made to the Deputy Commissioner and the subsequent communication between the Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner regarding the refund claim. Despite these communications, no action had been taken by the authorities. The court, after hearing both parties, directed the Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner to address the matter promptly and make a decision within 15 days from the date of the court's order. The court emphasized the need for compliance with the law and expressed hope that further litigation could be avoided.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues raised by the writ applicant, the legal arguments presented, and the court's directions to the concerned authorities for resolving the matter in accordance with the law.