2019 (9) TMI 874 - HC - GST

Difficulties being faced in entertainment, processing and allowance of the refund claims made under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, read with Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act - grievance of the petitioners is also that the statutory mechanism created for entertaining refund claims is not being implemented, and that there are some inherent lacunas in the scheme formulated by the Respondents to process the refund claims. HELD THAT - The meetings should be held between all stakeholders, wherein representatives of the petitioners, and all the respondents are present so that all the issues raised in the present petition, and such other issues as are faced by the trade and industry, though not forming part of the petition, are taken up in the spirit of resolving the same for the better administration and implementation of the indirect tax regime in the larger interest of the nation. The petitioners are directed to make a bullet point presentation, listing all the issues as are raised in the present petition, and such other issues as may be outstanding. The said representation shall be circulated amongst the respondents, as well as the counsel for the respondents within a week. Within a week of the representation being made, a meeting shall be arranged to be held at the office of the GST Council at Janpath, New Delhi. List on 15.10.2019.

Summary

Issues:
Challenges in processing refund claims under Central Goods and Services Tax Act and Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act.

Analysis:
The High Court addressed a writ petition filed by the Sales Tax Bar Association regarding difficulties faced in the entertainment, processing, and allowance of refund claims under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, along with the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act. The petitioners contended that refunds were not being acknowledged, processed, and granted as per the Acts and rules. They also highlighted that the statutory mechanism for refund claims was not being effectively implemented, pointing out inherent lacunas in the scheme devised by the Respondents for processing such claims.

The Court heard submissions from both parties, including the counsel for respondent Nos. 3, 5, and 7. Initially, there was no representation for Respondent No. 4, but later, an advocate representing Respondent No. 4 in similar cases accepted notice on their behalf. The Court acknowledged that several serious issues were raised in the petition, emphasizing the need to streamline the GST regime for better implementation of laws and to address the challenges faced by trade and industry.

Recognizing the purpose of the proceedings as non-adversarial, aimed at enhancing the GST regime's efficiency, the Court directed stakeholders to conduct meetings to address the issues raised in the petition and other outstanding concerns affecting trade and industry. The petitioners were instructed to prepare a detailed presentation listing all issues raised in the petition and any other outstanding matters. This presentation would be shared with respondents and their counsels for a meeting at the office of the GST Council in New Delhi, coordinated by the Senior Standing Counsel. The meeting would involve key representatives from various entities to discuss and resolve the issues raised, with minutes of the meeting to be documented and presented to the Court subsequently.

The Court scheduled the next hearing for further updates on the progress made in addressing the issues raised, emphasizing the collaborative effort required from all stakeholders to streamline the indirect tax regime effectively.