9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 487 - HC - GSTRefund on CGST and IGST - denial only on the ground that his claim got consolidated under one head of SGST - petitioner's specific case is that due to error and new system of software in GST, the entire refund liability of ITC got auto populated under the head of SGST instead of CGST, SGST and IGST - HELD THAT - When the petitioner has received show cause notice for the rejection of the refund application, the petitioner in his reply dated 24.01.2019 and 14.05.2019, had categorically stated that they filed refund application indicating that the entire refund claim got auto-populated under a single head, namely, SGST. If due to error on the part of any software in GSTN, this had occurred obviously, the petitioner cannot be expected to produce proof for the same. In any event, the petitioner had submitted the refund applications manually also. If the petitioner was otherwise eligible to refund, on the ground of technical glitches and error having occurred due to auto-population, the petitioner ought not to be denied relief. Nothing can be more unfair. The orders impugned in these writ petitions are set aside to the extent they reject the refund claim of the petitioner made under CGST and IGST. The matter is remitted to the file of the second respondent - Petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Refund claim under SGST, CGST, and IGST denied due to consolidation under SGST head - Petitioner's entitlement to refund under CGST and IGST - Rejection of refund claim by respondents - Petitioner's contention of error in refund application due to GST software - Consideration of documentary proof by respondents - Petitioner's eligibility for refund under CGST and IGST - Relief sought in writ petitions. Analysis: The petitioner, an exporter, registered with the third respondent under the Goods and Service Tax Act, claimed refund for zero-rated sales made in October 2017, November 2017, and February 2018 under SGST, CGST, and IGST. However, the refund applications were consolidated under SGST alone by the second respondent, leading to the rejection of claims under CGST and IGST. The petitioner challenged this decision through writ petitions. The respondents contended that they correctly granted the refund under SGST to the extent available, and any technical errors should have been promptly reported by the petitioner. The Court noted the petitioner's eligibility for refunds under CGST and IGST based on verified supporting documents and export proofs. The petitioner's claim that the software error auto-populated the refund under SGST was rejected by the respondents for lack of documentary evidence. Upon reviewing the case, the Court found that the petitioner's claim for CGST and IGST refunds should not be denied solely due to consolidation under SGST. The petitioner had informed about the software error in their replies to show cause notices, stating that the refund claim was auto-populated under SGST. Considering the petitioner's manual submission of refund applications and eligibility for refund, the Court deemed it unfair to deny relief based on technical glitches. Consequently, the Court set aside the orders rejecting the petitioner's CGST and IGST refund claims and remitted the matter to the second respondent for verification of eligibility. The second respondent was directed to process the refund if satisfied, within eight weeks from the date of the Court's order. The writ petitions were allowed, with no costs awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
|
