2024 (9) TMI 1480 - HC - GST

Refund of certain amounts paid erroneously - respondents would submit that while rejecting the refund claim of the petitioner, it is seen that the officer had taken the view that the petitioner could not receive any advance payment after the supply of goods in the month of January, 2024 - HELD THAT - This reasoning adopted by the Officer does not take into consideration the fact that the petitioner has a case that the description of the amount received in February, 2024, as an advance, is actually a mistake and the same was also rectified by filing an amended return as can be seen from Ext.P4. This aspect of the matter does not appear to have been considered by the officer while passing Ext.P9 order. The refund application of the petitioner shall be reconsidered by the competent among the respondents, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The orders as aforesaid shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment - Ext.P9 is quashed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund application for erroneously paid tax.
2. Discrepancies in invoices, payments, and tax filings.
3. Failure to consider petitioner's explanation for the mistake in amended return.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed an application for a refund of erroneously paid tax, which was rejected in Ext.P11 order on grounds deemed untenable. The petitioner contended that certain amounts were paid as tax erroneously due to a mistake in showing advance payment in GSTR-I for February 2024. The rejection was based on discrepancies in the value of invoices, advance payments, and lack of correlation between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B for the relevant months. The rejection order cited insufficient reasons supporting the excess payment, leading to the dismissal of the refund claim.

2. The court noted that the officer rejecting the refund claim did not consider the petitioner's explanation regarding the mistake in showing the amount as an advance payment in February 2024, which was later rectified through an amended return (Ext.P4). The officer's reasoning that no advance payment could be received after the supply of goods in January 2024 failed to acknowledge the petitioner's clarification. The discrepancies between invoices, payments, and tax filings were not adequately addressed in the rejection order, leading to the quashing of Ext.P9 and the directive to reconsider the refund application.

3. Consequently, the court quashed Ext.P9 and instructed the competent authority to reexamine the petitioner's refund application, taking into account the petitioner's explanation and providing an opportunity for a hearing. The competent authority was directed to issue new orders within two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of the judgment, ensuring a fair reconsideration of the refund claim in light of the clarified circumstances presented by the petitioner.