Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2021 (12) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2021 (12) TMI 63 - HC - GST


Issues:
1. Validity of Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST dated 18th November 2019 regarding online filing of refund applications.
2. Interpretation of rule 97A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.
3. Compliance with statutory provisions and circular instructions in processing refund applications.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST, arguing it was ultra vires the CGST Act as it mandated online filing of refund applications only. The petitioner sought permission to file refund applications manually if unable to do so online. The Court noted the obligation of officers to follow circulars but emphasized that the Superintendent must also adhere to the CGST Act and Rules. The Court found the Superintendent erred in not accepting manual applications despite Rule 97A allowing manual filing alongside electronic filing.

2. Rule 97A, inserted in the CGST Rules, allows manual filing despite provisions for electronic filing. The Court held that the rule overrides rules 89 to 97, ensuring manual filing is accepted for refund applications. The Court clarified that the impugned circular applies to electronic filings but does not supersede rule 97A, which must be respected. The Court rejected the argument that only online applications could be processed, preserving the purpose of rule 97A and upholding manual filing rights.

3. Referring to a previous decision, the Court emphasized that officers must follow Board instructions but cannot disregard statutory rules. The Court set aside the Superintendent's letter and allowed the petitioner to refile the refund application manually. The Superintendent was directed to process the application promptly, providing reasons for rejection if applicable. The Court ordered timely refunds for eligible applicants. The writ petition was allowed, emphasizing compliance with both circular instructions and statutory rules.

This detailed analysis highlights the Court's interpretation of the impugned circular, rule 97A, and the importance of adherence to statutory provisions and circular instructions in processing refund applications.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates