2020 (12) TMI 622 - HC - GST

Refund of ITC - petitioner submitted that the grievances ventilated in the petition about the non-acceptance of the refund claim for the period running from May, 2018 to September, 2018 does not remain in existence as the respondent has now accepted the refund application - HELD THAT - The respondents are directed to decide the refund application as expeditiously as possible and practicable in accordance with law, rules, regulations and government policies applicable to the fact of the case. Liberty is reserved with this petitioner to the effect that litigation can be initiated by this petitioner before the appropriate forum in accordance with law, if the refund claim is not accepted by the respondent,. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
- Refund application acceptance and processing
- Common portal restriction for refund claiming
- Validity of circular imposing conditions
- Permission to file refund applications for subsequent periods

Analysis:
1. Refund Application Acceptance and Processing:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for the acceptance and processing of a refund application amounting to ?10,76,690. The counsel for the petitioner informed the court that the respondent had accepted the refund application for the period from May 2018 to September 2018. Consequently, the remaining prayers in the petition were not pressed at that stage. The court directed the respondent to decide on the refund application for Input Tax Credit (ITC) expeditiously and in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations.

2. Common Portal Restriction for Refund Claiming:
One of the prayers in the petition challenged the restriction placed on the common portal for claiming refunds, alleging it to be contrary to the CGST Act and Rules. However, since the refund application was accepted by the respondent, this specific issue was not addressed further in the judgment.

3. Validity of Circular Imposing Conditions:
The petitioner also sought a declaration that certain circular provisions were ultra vires the statutory provisions of the CGST Act and Rules. The court did not delve into this issue as the refund application had been accepted. Therefore, the validity of the circular was not specifically addressed in the judgment.

4. Permission to File Refund Applications for Subsequent Periods:
Another prayer requested permission to file refund applications for periods subsequent to September 2017 and to process them in accordance with the law. Since the primary refund application was accepted, this issue was not discussed further in the judgment.

In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of with the direction to the respondent to decide on the refund application promptly. The petitioner was granted liberty to initiate further legal proceedings if the refund claim was not accepted by the respondent. The court emphasized that any future litigation should be in accordance with the law and regulations governing such matters.