9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 491 - HC - GSTRefund of GST - rejection on the ground of time limitation - petitioner submits that in view of the deficiency pointed out in the earlier proceedings, the petitioner was unable to upload the refund applications for the period commencing from February 2019 to December 2019 and that the limitation for filing refund claim had expired under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - Prima facie it appears that the issue is now settled in favour of the petitioner in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Lakshmi Organic Industries Limited Vs. Union of India and Ors 2021 (12) TMI 63 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT where it was held that it is observed that its term shall be applicable only to applications filed electronically on the common portal but would have no applicability to an application for refund which is filed manually. This writ petition is disposed off by directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.12.2021 without expressing any opinion on merits.
Issues:
1. Entitlement for refund under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017. 2. Rejection of refund claims based on non-satisfaction of requirements under Section 2 Sub-Section (6)(V) of IGST Act, 2017. 3. Limitation for filing refund claim under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017. 4. Consideration of manual refund claims. 5. Interpretation of rule 97A of the CGST Rules. 6. Applicability of instructions issued under Section 168 of the CGST Act. 7. Disposal of writ petition and preservation of petitioner's rights. Analysis: 1. The petitioner claimed entitlement for a refund under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017, for services exported. The refund claims for various periods were rejected due to non-compliance with the requirements of Section 2 Sub-Section (6)(V) of the IGST Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that due to deficiencies, they were unable to file refund applications for subsequent periods, and the limitation for filing had expired. 2. The petitioner submitted a representation requesting acceptance of manual declarations for the refund claims. The issue of manual refund claims was discussed in reference to a judgment by the Bombay High Court in the case of Lakshmi Organic Industries Limited Vs. Union of India and Ors. The court interpreted rule 97A of the CGST Rules, emphasizing that manual filing of applications could be accepted despite provisions for electronic filing, ensuring the rule's efficacy. 3. The court highlighted the importance of statutory rules over instructions issued under Section 168 of the CGST Act. It clarified that tax officers must adhere to statutory rules while discharging their duties, emphasizing the significance of rule 97A in accepting manual refund claims. The judgment emphasized the need to follow statutory rules rather than instructions issued under Section 168. 4. Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition by allowing the petitioner to file a manual refund application within a specified timeframe. The court directed the concerned authority to process the application promptly and provide reasons for rejection if applicable. The judgment aimed to ensure that the petitioner's rights were preserved, allowing for further recourse if adverse orders were passed. 5. In conclusion, the court's decision favored the petitioner, considering the interpretation of relevant provisions and the applicability of manual refund claims. The judgment provided clarity on the process for filing manual refund applications and upheld the petitioner's right to seek redress in case of adverse outcomes, thereby ensuring a fair and just disposal of the writ petition.
|
