2023 (1) TMI 559 - HC - GST

Refund of CGST - Section 54 of CGST Act - Export of Goods - they did not have Letter of Undertaking and the refund sought for is qua zero rated sales made to overseas purchases (exports) - HELD THAT - It will suffice to say that the aforementioned refund application dated 01.06.2019 was followed by as many as four reminders dated 19.07.2019, 29.07.2019, 05.12.2019 and 31.10.2022. It is rather intriguing that a simple refund application under Section 54 Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 has been kept pending for such length of time. The captioned writ petition is disposed of with a directive to the sole respondent to consider, process and make orders in the refund application of writ petitioner dated 01.06.2019 as expeditiously as the business of the sole respondent would permit and in any event within four weeks from today i.e., on or before 10.02.2023.

Summary

Issues:
Refund application under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 pending since 2019.

Analysis:
The High Court of Madras, in a judgment delivered by Honourable Mr. Justice M. Sundar, addressed the issue of a pending refund application under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The writ petition concerned a company engaged in the manufacturing of various goods, primarily for export. The company had opted for Integrated Goods and Services Tax (I-G & ST) under the GST regime due to the absence of a Letter of Undertaking. The refund sought pertained to zero-rated sales made to overseas purchasers. The Court noted that the refund application dated 01.06.2019 had been followed by multiple reminders, indicating a significant delay in processing the application.

The Court directed the sole respondent to consider, process, and make orders on the refund application expeditiously. The respondent was instructed to complete the process within four weeks from the date of the judgment, i.e., on or before 10.02.2023. The Court emphasized the need for prompt action on the refund application, given the extended delay already experienced by the petitioner. Additionally, the Court required the decision on the refund application to be communicated to the petitioner within five working days from the date of the decision.

In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with the directive for the respondent to expedite the processing of the refund application dated 01.06.2019. The judgment highlighted the importance of timely resolution of such matters and aimed to ensure that the petitioner received a decision promptly. The Court did not award any costs in this matter, focusing solely on the resolution of the pending refund application.