2023 (5) TMI 289 - HC - GST

Interest on refund - stand of the respondents is that as per Section 56 of the Haryana Goods Service Tax Act, 2017 interest is payable to the applicant only when the tax amount is ordered to be refunded under sub section (5) of Section 54 is not refunded within 60 days from the date of receipt of the application - HELD THAT - In the present case, since the amount was refunded to the petitioner on the very next day after issuing acknowledgement in Form RFD-02. Hence, there was no delay in issuing refund to the petitioner. As per respondents, payment of refund has been made after following the guidelines issued by CBEC circular No. 17.17.2017-GST and the moment the petitioner gave his application manually with earlier ARN after reversing input tax credit in the electronic credit ledger on 11.04.2019 and intimated the same to the proper officer. The proper officer issued acknowledgement in form RFD-02 on the same date and on the very next day i.e. 12.04.2019 refund was issued. The payment has been made as per the procedure given in the circular No. 94/13/2019-GST dated 28.03.2019 which covers the payment of refund. Hence, there is no delay on the part of the respondents in making payment of refund. The present writ petition is dismissed as the amount was refunded to the petitioner on the very next day after issuing acknowledgement in Form RFD-02.

Summary

Issues:
The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus for the release of a refund along with interest.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Refund Application Process
The petitioner filed a representation seeking refund of tax, but the officer stated that no refund direction could be issued unless certain conditions were met as per circular No. 17.17.2017-GST. The circular clarified that a taxpayer cannot file a fresh refund application if a deficiency memo had been issued against the earlier application for the same period. The officer mentioned that a suitable clarification from the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) was required before proceeding with the refund application.

Issue 2: Compliance with Orders
Respondent No. 3 filed an affidavit stating that the petitioner made a fresh refund application for a specific period, but failed to submit proof of the debit entry as requested by the proper officer. Consequently, the applications could not be considered as per law due to non-compliance with the deficiency notice.

Issue 3: Payment of Interest
The petitioner argued that interest should be paid as per Rule 91 of CGST Rule, as the delay in refund was not their fault. However, the respondents contended that interest is payable only when the tax amount ordered to be refunded is not refunded within 60 days from the date of application receipt. In this case, the refund was issued promptly after fulfilling the necessary conditions.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the refund was issued to the petitioner promptly after fulfilling the required procedures, as per the guidelines provided in the relevant circulars.