2024 (7) TMI 614 - HC - GST

Rejection of petitioner's claim for refund under Section 54 of applicable GST enactments - export of goods on payment of IGST - rejection on the ground that the dealer had not uploaded supporting documents - HELD THAT - The petitioner submitted that the processing of the refund claim is automatic and on the basis of documents already available on the portal such as shipping bills, invoices and the like. In these circumstances, the matter requires reconsideration. The impugned order dated 05.06.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the 1st respondent for reconsideration. The 2nd and 3rd respondents are directed to co-ordinate with the 1st respondent in relation to the risk alert - Petition disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to rejection of petitioner's claim for refund under Section 54 of applicable GST enactments.

Analysis:
The petitioner exported goods and claimed a refund of the IGST paid. While refunds for certain months were sanctioned, the refund for a specific month was not processed due to an alert raised by the Director General of Data Analytics & Risk Management (DGRAM). The petitioner reapplied, but the application was rejected. The petitioner argued that the refund process for export of goods is automatic, and all necessary documents are available on the portal, so submitting additional documents should not be required.

The Additional Government Pleader and the senior standing counsel accepted notice for the respondents and suggested reconsideration by taking note of documents already available on the portal and allowing the petitioner to submit additional documents if needed. The impugned order rejected the refund claim solely based on the lack of uploaded supporting documents. The petitioner's counsel emphasized that the refund process relies on documents like shipping bills and invoices available on the portal, making the rejection questionable.

The Court set aside the order and remanded the matter to the 1st respondent for reconsideration. The 2nd and 3rd respondents were directed to co-ordinate with the 1st respondent regarding the risk alert. The 1st respondent was instructed to consider all documents on the portal and allow the petitioner to submit additional documents if necessary. The 1st respondent was given a two-month deadline to process the refund application after receiving a copy of the order. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.