2024 (1) TMI 812 - HC - GST

IGST refund claim - it was submitted that there was an alert reflected in the automated system that processes the claims for such refunds and that the refunds of IGST were not processed due to this alert - HELD THAT - If the State GST wanted the alert to continue, they would have said so in their communication dated 06.12.2023. Besides, as submitted by Mr Nadkarni and supported by Ms Priyanka Kamat, these are matters of IGST refund on account of exports. Therefore, at least prima facie, the State GST officials would not have any role to play concerning these refunds. In times when efforts are on to promote the ease of doing business and to minimise official discretion, withholding refunds due to prima facie red tape should not be encouraged. Neither should the taxpayers nor the exchequer suffer for avoidable delays in such matters. The 5th Respondent is directed to ensure forthwith that the alerts are removed consistent with the statement which was made by the learned Senior Standing Counsel and recorded by us in our order dated 12.12.2023. The 5th Respondent must also take necessary steps to ensure that the balance amount of Rs. 90,21,320/- is processed in terms of the law and refunded/ credited into the Petitioner s bank account within a maximum of seven days from today. If this is not done, then the liability to pay interest on this amount will have to be saddled on the incumbent now holding the position of the 5th Respondent.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment addresses the issue of processing undisputed IGST refund claims and releasing the refund amount to the petitioner's bank account.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Processing of IGST refund claims
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to process undisputed IGST refund claims. The respondent mentioned an alert in the automated system causing the delay in processing the refunds. The court directed the authorities to respond within fifteen days to avoid unreasonable withholding or delay in payment of the refunds if due.

Issue 2: Alert removal and refund processing
The 5th respondent communicated with tax authorities to revoke the alert against the petitioner for crediting the pending IGST refund amount. The court noted that the alert was lifted, and an affidavit would be filed regarding the refund issue. However, discrepancies arose regarding the alert status and balance refunds. The court directed the 5th respondent to remove the alerts, process the balance refund amount, and credit it to the petitioner's account within seven days to avoid interest liability.

Separate Judgment:
The court made the rule absolute for the already received amount, directing the 5th respondent to take necessary steps for processing the remaining refund amount promptly. No costs were imposed, and all parties were instructed to act on the court's order.