2022 (2) TMI 509 - HC - GST

Refund of GST - zero-rated supply of goods or services or both - Section 54(6) and 54(7) of the CGST Act read with rule 91(2) of the CGST Rules - HELD THAT - Issue notice. Mr.Satyakam, learned ASC accepts notice on behalf of the Respondents. He, on instructions, undertakes to this Court that the Petitioner s refund application shall be decided in accordance with law within three weeks. Learned counsel for the Petitioner is satisfied with the said undertaking. The undertaking given by learned counsel for the Respondents is accepted by this Court and the Respondents are held bound by the same - List the matter for compliance on 09 th March, 2022.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of CGST amount along with interest for specific months of 2020 not processed by Respondents within stipulated time limits.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a proprietorship firm engaged in exporting dental case solution items, filed a writ petition seeking a refund of ?88,13,408/- under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) for the months of April to September, 2020. Despite submitting the refund application as required, the Respondents failed to process the refund within the prescribed time limits specified under Section 54(6) and 54(7) of the CGST Act along with Rule 91(2) of the CGST Rules.

2. The petitioner's counsel argued that as per the statutory provisions, the proper officer is mandated to refund at least 90% of the claimed amount within seven days from the acknowledgment date and the entire amount within sixty days from the application receipt date. Citing a previous court order in a similar case, the petitioner sought timely processing of the refund application.

3. Upon hearing the petition, the court issued notice to the Respondents, who accepted the notice and assured the court that the refund application would be decided within three weeks in compliance with the law. The petitioner's counsel expressed satisfaction with this undertaking, leading to the court accepting the Respondents' commitment and holding them bound by it.

4. Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition based on the undertaking provided by the Respondents and scheduled the matter for compliance on a specified date. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory time limits for processing refund applications under the CGST Act to ensure timely resolution of such matters.

This detailed analysis outlines the key arguments, legal provisions, court proceedings, and the eventual resolution of the refund dispute as per the judgment delivered by the Delhi High Court.