2025 (2) TMI 584 - HC - GST

Seeking issuance of appropriate writ against the respondent No. 2 authority for recalling and/or for cancelling and/or for rescinding the deficiency memo order - seeking refund of CESS amount paid during the assessment year 2017-18 contending that the demand was erroneous - HELD THAT - On perusal of the provision of Section 39 (9) read with Section 54 (1) of the said Act of 2017 it appears that admittedly legislatures in their own wisdom have set a cut off date for making an application either for correction of any omission or incorrect particulars as well as for claim of refund. On perusal of the annexures to the instant writ petition being copies of the different applications and the deficiency memos it appears to this Court that it has been contended before the respondent No. 2 authority by the writ petitioner that due to clerical mistakes he put SGST figure in CESS column and for which he seeks refund. Whether the writ petitioner is entitled to get the refund or not that aspect completely falls under the domain of the respondent No. 2 authority but this Court considers that while rejecting the prayer for remand the respondent No. 2 ought to have assigned a reason by passing an appropriate order and should upload the said order in the relevant portal so as to enable the writ petitioner to prefer an appeal before the appropriate authority. While disposing the instant writ petition this Court quashes the deficiency memo dated 21.02.2024 as issued by the respondent No. 2 authority with a direction to the respondent No. 2 authority to consider the refund application dated 05.02.2024 as made by the writ petitioner in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner and thereafter to pass a reasoned order on such application and to upload the same in the relevant portal forthwith. Conclusion - The respondent authority was directed to comply with the order promptly and the parties were granted certified copies of the order upon request. Petition disposed off.

Summary

The High Court of Calcutta considered a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking relief against the respondent authority's deficiency memo order dated 21.02.2024. The petitioner claimed a refund of CESS amount paid during the assessment year 2017-18, contending that the demand was erroneous. The respondent authority rejected the refund claim citing the expiry of the statutory time limit under Section 54(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (the 'said Act of 2017'). The petitioner argued that the time limits in Sections 39(9) and 54(1) should be construed as directory, not mandatory.The Court examined the provisions of Sections 39 and 54 of the said Act of 2017, emphasizing the statutory requirements for rectification of errors and refund claims. It noted the petitioner's contention that a clerical error led to the erroneous payment of CESS, justifying the refund claim. The Court highlighted the respondent's failure to upload the rejection order on the relevant portal, hindering the petitioner's right to appeal.Ultimately, the Court quashed the deficiency memo and directed the respondent authority to consider the petitioner's refund application, provide an opportunity for a hearing, issue a reasoned order, and upload it promptly. The Court clarified that its decision did not prejudge the refund application's merits and instructed the respondent authority to act independently in evaluating the application. The respondent authority was directed to comply with the order promptly, and the parties were granted certified copies of the order upon request.In conclusion, the Court's decision focused on procedural fairness, emphasizing the importance of providing reasons for decisions and enabling parties to exercise their right to appeal. The judgment aimed to ensure that the petitioner's refund application was properly considered and addressed in accordance with the law, highlighting the significance of procedural regularity in administrative actions.