2024 (6) TMI 551 - HC - GST

Refund of Input Tax Credit - HELD THAT - On the petitioner s application for refund, a deficiency memo dated 31.12.2019 (Ex.P9) was issued with the remarks that no supporting documents were attached. The Taxpayer was advised to file a fresh refund application rectifying the deficiencies. The petitioner s case is that since the portal was closed, fresh application could not be filed on portal and the deficiencies pointed out could also not be removed and the respondent authorities would not accept manual filing. The rules of procedure are handmade of justice. They are for effective and timely redressal of the grievance. They are not for destroying the rights or to defeat the legitimate claims. If the petitioner could not do the needful on portal in time for the reasons disclosed, he cannot be denied of his right for consideration of the claim for refund under the statute. The writ petition is disposed off finally by providing that the petitioner shall be at liberty to file an application for refund completing the requisite documents making good the deficiency as pointed in the deficiency memo, manually, within a period of two (02) weeks along with the copy of this order before the Competent Authority.

Summary

Issues involved: Application for refund of Input Tax Credit, deficiency memo, portal closure, manual filing, statutory compliance.

Summary:

Application for refund of Input Tax Credit:
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking relief for the refund of Input Tax Credit amounting to Rs. 40,10,932 for the period from April 2018 to March 2019. The petitioner requested the respondent authorities to process the application for refund or alternatively, to allow manual filing of the necessary documents due to portal closure preventing online submission.

Deficiency memo and portal closure:
A deficiency memo was issued to the petitioner on 31.12.2019, stating that no supporting documents were attached to the refund application. The petitioner was advised to rectify the deficiencies, but due to portal closure, a fresh application could not be filed online. The respondent authorities insisted on online filing and pointed out the absence of the Letter of Undertaking (LUT) required under the IGST Act, 2017.

Manual filing and statutory compliance:
The Court acknowledged the petitioner's inability to rectify deficiencies online due to portal closure and emphasized the importance of procedural rules not impeding justice. The Court directed the petitioner to manually file a refund application with the necessary documents within two weeks before the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority was instructed to consider the application within six weeks, ensuring that manual filing would not be a ground for rejection.

Conclusion:
The Writ Petition was disposed of, granting the petitioner the opportunity to manually file the refund application and addressing the deficiencies within a specified timeframe. The Competent Authority was tasked with reviewing the application and making a decision in accordance with the law. No costs were awarded, and pending miscellaneous petitions were closed as a result of the judgment.