2024 (6) TMI 114 - HC - GST

Refund of unutilized ITC used in making zero-rated supply of goods - Acceptance of the refund claim application for the period Dec. 2018 under Any Other category on GST portal - When the petitioner realized the arithmetical error committed while submitting the applications for refund for particular months, supplementary applications have been made for getting the refund - HELD THAT - The controversy involved in this case is covered by the decision passed by Gujarat High Court in MESSRS SHREE RENUKA SUGARS LTD. VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT 2023 (7) TMI 938 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT where it was held that 'It is settled law that the benefit which otherwise a person is entitled to once the substantive conditions are satisfied cannot be denied due to a technical error or lacunae in the electronic system.' Thus, the joint acceptance of its applicability, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to furnish manually the refund applications for refund of the left out amount. However, it is open for the respondent authorities to scrutiny the claim of the petitioner for refund of the amount in accordance with law and to take appropriate decision on the applications which may be made by the petitioner.

Issues Involved:

1. Refund claim application under "Any Other" category on GST portal.
2. Quashing of Orders-in-Original (O-I-O) and Orders-in-Appeal (O-I-A).
3. Consideration of refund application ignoring computational mistakes.
4. Permission to file GSTR RED-01A/RFD-01 for December 2018.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Refund Claim Application under "Any Other" Category on GST Portal:

The petitioner sought permission to file the refund claim application for December 2018 under the "Any Other" category on the GST portal or alternatively, to file a physical refund application. The court referenced the Gujarat High Court decision in Special Civil Application No. 22339/2022, which dealt with a similar issue where the petitioner had erroneously lodged claims for a lower amount due to an arithmetical error. The petitioner, in that case, had to lodge supplementary refund claims under the "Any Other" category because the portal did not allow another application under the same category for the same period. The court viewed this as a technical error and held that the claim should not be rejected without examining the merits.

2. Quashing of Orders-in-Original (O-I-O) and Orders-in-Appeal (O-I-A):

The petitioner requested the quashing of the Orders-in-Original dated 24.05.2020 and the Orders-in-Appeal dated 21.07.2020. The court did not specifically address this issue in the provided text but implied that the previous decisions and errors in the refund process could render these orders invalid if they were based on the same technical errors and procedural issues.

3. Consideration of Refund Application Ignoring Computational Mistakes:

The petitioner asked for directions to consider the refund application ignoring computational mistakes. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in VKC Foodsteps India Private Limited, which emphasized that fiscal policy and statutory prescriptions govern the entitlement to refunds. The court noted that while the legislature defines the circumstances for refunds, technical errors should not obstruct the substantive rights of the petitioner to receive the refund. The court cited multiple precedents where technical glitches should not prevent the rightful claims, suggesting that computational mistakes should be overlooked if they do not affect the substantive entitlement.

4. Permission to File GSTR RED-01A/RFD-01 for December 2018:

The petitioner sought permission to file GSTR RED-01A/RFD-01 for December 2018. The court, referencing previous decisions, indicated that procedural issues or technical glitches should not bar the petitioner from filing the necessary forms to claim their refunds. The court allowed the petitioner to furnish the refund applications manually if the system did not permit electronic filing, ensuring that the petitioner's substantive rights were protected.

Conclusion:

The court disposed of the petition with the liberty for the petitioner to manually furnish refund applications for the left-out amount. The respondent authorities were directed to scrutinize the refund claim on its merits and take an appropriate decision within three months from receiving the certified copy of the order. The court emphasized that technical errors should not obstruct the substantive rights of the petitioner, aligning with the principles established in the referenced judgments.

← Previous Next →