9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (3) TMI 1021 - HC - GSTRefund of excess GST collected by the promoter and deposited with the respondents - compliance with Circular No. 188/20/2022-GST or not - HELD THAT - It appears that the petitioners have approached this Court prematurely without taking recourse to the actions against the promoter in accordance with law so as to get the requisite documents in order to process the refund claim (if any) to be sanctioned by the respondents as per the provisions of the GST Act and the Rules and therefore we refrain to entertain this petition at this stage. The petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered in this judgment include: 1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to a refund of the GST collected by the promoter, as per the provisions of Section 54 of the CGST Act, in light of the principles established in the case of Munjaal Manishbhai Bhatt v. Union of India. 2. Whether the deficiency memos issued by the respondents requiring compliance with Circular No. 188/20/2022-GST are valid, given the non-mandatory nature of artificial deeming fictions in GST valuation as established by the Gujarat High Court. 3. Whether the respondents are obligated to process the refund applications without the supporting documents, such as invoices or receipts, which the petitioners claim are unavailable due to the promoter's non-compliance. 4. Whether the petitioners have prematurely approached the Court without exhausting alternative remedies to obtain the necessary documents from the promoter. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 1. Entitlement to GST Refund under Section 54 of the CGST Act The petitioners sought a refund of GST collected by the promoter, arguing that the promoter was not entitled to collect GST on the portion of the land as per the decision in Munjaal Manishbhai Bhatt v. Union of India. The petitioners contended that the respondents have not adjudicated the refund application and instead issued deficiency memos requiring documents that the petitioners do not possess. The Court noted that the petitioners' entitlement to a refund hinges on the ability to provide requisite documents as per Section 54 of the CGST Act and Rule 89 of the GST Rules. The Court emphasized the necessity of these documents to process refund claims. 2. Validity of Deficiency Memos and Circular No. 188/20/2022-GST The petitioners challenged the deficiency memos issued by the respondents, arguing that they were based on Circular No. 188/20/2022-GST, which allegedly contradicts the principles laid down by the Gujarat High Court regarding GST valuation. The Court did not explicitly address the validity of the circular but focused on the procedural requirements for processing refund applications, emphasizing the need for supporting documents as per the prevailing legal framework. 3. Requirement of Supporting Documents for Refund Processing The respondents maintained that the deficiency memos were issued due to the absence of necessary documents, such as invoices or receipts, which are essential for processing the refund claims. The Court agreed with the respondents, highlighting that the absence of these documents impedes the refund process. The petitioners argued that they could not provide the documents as the promoter failed to issue them. The Court noted that the petitioners should pursue appropriate legal recourse against the promoter to obtain the necessary documents. 4. Premature Approach to the Court The Court observed that the petitioners approached the Court prematurely without exhausting alternative remedies to obtain the necessary documents from the promoter. The Court suggested that the petitioners should first take action against the promoter to secure the requisite documents, which would enable the respondents to process the refund claims. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court dismissed the petition, concluding that the petitioners had not exhausted all available remedies to obtain the necessary documents required for processing their refund claims. The Court refrained from entertaining the petition at this stage, emphasizing the procedural necessity of providing supporting documents as per the GST Act and Rules. Core Principles Established: "In view of the above submissions, it appears that the petitioners have approached this Court prematurely without taking recourse to the actions against the promoter in accordance with law so as to get the requisite documents in order to process the refund claim (if any), to be sanctioned by the respondents as per the provisions of the GST Act and the Rules and therefore, we refrain to entertain this petition at this stage." The Court underscored the importance of following procedural requirements and exhausting alternative remedies before seeking judicial intervention. The decision reinforces the principle that refund claims under the GST framework must be supported by appropriate documentation, and parties must utilize available legal avenues to resolve disputes with third parties, such as promoters, before approaching the Court.
|
