9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 677 - HC - GSTRefund of CGST and SGST paid alongwith interest - typographical error had crept in the return regarding the declared turnover - petitioner s request for processing of refund has been rejected as the return was not rectified - HELD THAT - The respondents, states that she has received instructions that the petitioner has provided documents for rectification of the error that had crept in its return and if the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority, the petitioner s request for refund would be considered afresh. The order dated 11.12.2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority rejecting the petitioner s application for refund as well as the order dated 25.10.2021 (sent on 01.11.2021) are set aside - the petitioner s application for refund is restored before the Adjudicating Authority to be decided afresh. The petition is disposed of.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the rejection of the petitioner's application for refund due to a typographical error in the return regarding the declared turnover and the delay in setting up the GST Appellate Tribunal. Regarding the rejection of the application for refund: The petitioner's application for refund was rejected because of a typographical error in the return where the turnover was incorrectly reported as &8377;10,18,10,097/- instead of &8377;1,01,81,097/-. Despite the correct tax details, the refund request was denied. The Court expressed a prima facie view that the rejection was unwarranted and ordered the matter to be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for reevaluation after rectifying the error. The respondents confirmed that the petitioner had submitted documents to rectify the mistake, and if the matter is sent back, the refund request would be reconsidered. Consequently, the orders rejecting the refund application were set aside, and the application was restored for fresh consideration by the Adjudicating Authority. The Authority was directed to process the application promptly, preferably within four weeks. Regarding the delay in setting up the GST Appellate Tribunal: The petitioner also sought a direction to set up the GST Appellate Tribunal promptly. This issue was not explicitly addressed in the summary of the judgment provided, but the Court's focus seemed to be primarily on the refund application matter.
|
