2023 (5) TMI 320 - HC - GST

Rejection of refund claim - rejection on the ground that the petitioner had not provided the relevant documents and had not appeared before the concerned officer - documents filed as required under Rule 89 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - Applicability of Circular No. 125/44/2019 GST dated 18.11.2019 - HELD THAT - Undeniably, if an application for refund is accompanied by all relevant documents as prescribed under Rule 89 of the Rules, the said application cannot be rejected as incomplete and is required to be processed. However, that does not preclude the concerned officer from calling upon the applicant to furnish any other relevant documents that he considers necessary for processing the application for refund. Considering that the petitioner had provided most of the relevant documents as also the fact that if the Appellate Tribunal was constituted, the petitioner would be entitled to seek an opportunity to furnish the relevant documents before the Tribunal; this Court considers it apposite to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Proper Officer to adjudicate the petitioner s claim for refund afresh - the petitioner shall furnish all documents available with the petitioner, as sought for by the Proper Officer, within a period of three weeks from today. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
The petitioner's appeal against the rejection of refund by the Proper Officer based on lack of relevant documents and appearance before the concerned officer.

Summary:
The petitioner challenged an order rejecting their refund claim of Rs. 4,99,880 on the grounds of not providing necessary documents and not appearing before the officer, as per Rule 89 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The petitioner argued that all required documents were submitted and relied on Circular No. 125/44/2019 - GST to support their case. The Court noted that if an application for refund includes all relevant documents as per the Rules, it cannot be rejected as incomplete, but the officer can request additional documents if necessary. The Court found that the petitioner was required to submit the documents as requested by the Proper Officer. However, considering that most relevant documents were provided and the petitioner could furnish the remaining before the Appellate Tribunal, the Court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication by the Proper Officer. The petitioner was directed to submit all available documents within three weeks, and the Officer was instructed to decide on the claim expeditiously, preferably within four weeks. The Court clarified that it did not express any view on the merits of the claim, which would be considered independently. The petition was disposed of accordingly, along with any pending applications.