2025 (4) TMI 1518 - HC - GST

Seeking clarification from the Chief Secretary of the State of Goa taking note of the conundrum as to whether the refund should come from the Department of Customs or the State Tax Department - HELD THAT - The desired clarification dated 15.04.2025 under the signature of the Chief Secretary received where it is categorically stated by him that the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax Panaji Ward is the Refund Sanctioning Authority (RSA) in respect of all registered taxable persons under the jurisdiction of Panaji Ward. The Chief Secretary has also set out the procedure to be followed by referring to the circular issued by the Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue. The prompt action on the part of the Chief Secretary Government of Goa is appreciated as now clarity can be accorded to the grievance of the Petitioner. The Application filed online today in terms of the procedure that has been set out in the circular dated 18.11.2019 issued by the Government of India we expect the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax i.e. Respondent No. 1 to decide the said Application within a period of eight weeks from today - petition disposed off.

Summary

The Bombay High Court, through BHARATI DANGRE & NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ., addressed the petition concerning the authority responsible for sanctioning refunds and interest on delayed refunds under the CGST Act, 2017. The Court awaited clarification from the Chief Secretary of Goa, who confirmed that the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Panaji Ward, is the "Refund Sanctioning Authority (RSA)" for all registered taxable persons under that jurisdiction. The Chief Secretary also outlined the applicable procedure referencing a Government of India circular dated 18.11.2019.The Court held that the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax shall consider the Application for interest on delayed refund in compliance with Section 56 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Respondent No. 1 (Deputy Commissioner) was directed to decide the Application within eight weeks. The Court emphasized that with this clarification, petitioners should not be compelled to approach the Court again on similar issues.The Writ Petition and pending miscellaneous application were disposed of accordingly.