2021 (2) TMI 690 - HC - GST

Refund claim - Seeking directions to respondent to pay the balance GST (Goods and Service Tax) @ 7% on the R.A. bills already issued and to be issued in future by the petitioner on and from 01.07.2017 - seeking restraint on particularly respondent N. 5 from making any demand of the balance 7% GST in question or from taking any action against the petitioner - HELD THAT - There is nothing on record to suggest any inaction on the part of the authorities in processing the application for refund. The present writ petition is disposed off, inter alia with the following directions- (a) The petitioner shall initiate proceeding before the concerned authority under the Act, seeking refund of the amount, as per the agreement dated 23rd June, 2016 within two weeks from today. (b) Such application filed by the petitioner shall positively be processed and decided within a period of four weeks thereafter or the statutory period prescribed under the Act. (c) In the event of failure, the officials found negligent in taking appropriate action, shall be held personally responsible. (d) Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file a petition on the same and substantial inaction of the concerned authorities in processing/deciding the refund application. (e) Additionally, if any amount is deposited by the petitioner, the same shall also be processed along with the refund application.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petitioner seeking direction for payment of balance GST on R.A. bills.
2. Dispute over liability to pay tax under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
3. Concerns regarding non-compliance with statutory provisions for refund.
4. Directions issued by the court for initiating refund proceedings and processing applications.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner requested the court to direct the respondent to pay the balance GST on R.A. bills as per the agreement. The court acknowledged the liability to pay tax under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, placing the responsibility on the petitioner. However, the petitioner raised concerns about non-payment by the instrumentality of the State. The court disposed of the petition with directions for refund initiation.

2. The court noted that the liability to pay tax under the Act rests with the petitioner, despite the agreement with the State instrumentality. The petitioner's counsel expressed concerns about authorities not expediting the refund process. The court found no evidence of inaction by the authorities in processing the refund application. The judgment emphasized the petitioner's obligation to seek refund within a specified timeline.

3. The court directed the petitioner to initiate proceedings for refund within two weeks, ensuring the application is processed and decided promptly. Officials failing to act appropriately were warned of personal responsibility. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a petition in case of substantial inaction by the authorities. Additionally, any amount deposited by the petitioner was to be processed along with the refund application.

4. The court's directions included specific timelines for refund application processing, holding negligent officials accountable, and allowing the petitioner to address inaction through further petitions. Interlocutory applications were also disposed of in the judgment, ensuring comprehensive resolution of the issues raised by the petitioner regarding GST payment and refund processes.