2022 (4) TMI 754 - HC - GST

Refund of unutilized input tax credit - zero-rated supplies - exports without payment of tax - absence of entry in Annexure B stated as the sole reason for partial rejection of the refund in the impugned order - HELD THAT - It appears that even though it was mentioned in the application for refund that it was an application pertaining to exports on payment of tax, the adjudicating authority appears to have adjudicated the application as if it was for refund of unutilized input tax credit pertaining to exports without payment of tax. This has created a situation whereby on one hand the refund has been partially rejected and on the other hand such partially rejected amount is not even being re-credited into the electronic credit ledger of the writ-applicant even though there is an order passed by the authority for re-credit of the rejected amount. It also appears from the documents on record that the order partially rejecting the refund was passed without issuing any show cause notice to the writ-applicant and is also a nonspeaking and cryptic order. The matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for deciding afresh the refund application of the writ-applicant to the extent the refund has been rejected. The refund which has already been granted to the writ-applicant may not be disturbed - Application allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of tax paid on exports partially rejected, Request for writ of certiorari, mandamus, or appropriate writ, Error in processing refund application, Rejection without show cause notice, Remand of matter for fresh processing, Re-crediting rejected amount in electronic credit ledger.

Analysis:
1. The writ-application sought relief through a writ of certiorari or mandamus to quash the order partially rejecting the refund of tax paid on exports and to direct the authorities to grant the refund or re-credit the amount. The applicant, engaged in IT consulting services, exported services under the GST Acts, opting for payment of tax for June 2019 exports. The refund application was rejected citing an entry error in 'Annexure B', leading to confusion as the application was for taxed exports, not zero-rated supplies. The rejection lacked a show cause notice and proper hearing, prompting the need for remand to rectify the error in processing.

2. The applicant's counsel argued that the adjudicating authority erred in treating the refund application as for tax-free exports, contrary to the taxed export nature. The absence of 'Annexure B' entry was incorrectly deemed the reason for partial rejection. The authority's failure to re-credit the rejected amount compounded the issue, necessitating remand for proper verification of tax payment on exported services, without the need for fresh application. The lack of notice and a vague order further highlighted the procedural irregularities.

3. The AGP representing the respondents agreed to remand the matter for reevaluation, acknowledging the need for procedural clarity. The Court concurred with the applicant's submissions, emphasizing the misinterpretation of the refund application and the subsequent failure to re-credit the rejected amount. The impugned order was quashed, directing a fresh assessment of the refund application without disturbing the already granted refund. The authority was instructed to decide on the rejected portion promptly, allowing for a fresh application if necessary, following the remand order.

4. In conclusion, the Court disposed of the writ-application, mandating the adjudication of the refund claim within four weeks, emphasizing the importance of rectifying the errors in processing and ensuring procedural fairness. The judgment aimed to address the misinterpretation of the refund application, lack of proper notice, and the need for re-crediting the rejected amount in the electronic credit ledger, providing a comprehensive resolution to the dispute.