2025 (4) TMI 1158 - HC - GST

Refund claim - challenge to constitutional validity of Sections 16(2) and 16(4) of the GST Act - H ELD THAT - It is found from the pleadings in the writ petition and the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge that the vires of Sections 16 (2) and 16 (4) of the GST Act was not an issue raised in the writ petition and therefore the dismissal of the writ petition has caused prejudice to the appellant. Inasmuch as there is no adjudication on the merits of the claim of the appellant/writ petitioner the judgment under appeal is liable to be set aside and the writ petition be restored to file for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The impugned judgement is set aside and petition is restored to its file - appeal allowed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court in this intra court appeal were:

(a) Whether the dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of its being tagged along with other writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 16(2) and 16(4) of the GST Act was justified, given that the present writ petition did not raise the vires of these provisions.

(b) Whether the appellant, having mistakenly filed Form GSTR-1 indicating export "with payment of tax" instead of "without payment of tax" and having filed an application for refund accordingly, was entitled to amend the Form GSTR-1 and the refund application beyond the prescribed time limit, especially when the online portal did not permit such amendment.

(c) Whether the appellant was entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to open the online portal to accept the refund application and amendment of Form GSTR-1 returns for the relevant year.

(d) Whether the dismissal of the writ petition without adjudication on the merits of the refund claim caused prejudice to the appellant, warranting restoration of the writ petition for fresh consideration.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

(a) Validity of dismissal of writ petition based on tagging with other petitions challenging Sections 16(2) and 16(4) of the GST Act

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The GST Act provides for refund claims under Section 54 and prescribes procedures for filing returns and amendments within stipulated time limits. Sections 16(2) and 16(4) deal with input tax credit conditions and restrictions, which were challenged in other writ petitions.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by adopting reasoning from a judgment dealing with constitutional validity of Sections 16(2) and 16(4), which were not issues raised in the present writ petition. The appellant's petition was wrongly tagged along with those petitions.

Key evidence and findings: The appellant's counsel admitted the mistake in tagging and argued that the dismissal on this basis caused prejudice. The respondents did not dispute that the vires of Sections 16(2) and 16(4) were not raised in the present petition.

Application of law to facts: Since the dismissal was based on reasoning irrelevant to the issues raised, it amounted to a procedural error causing prejudice to the appellant.

Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents acknowledged similar mistakes in other cases, which were corrected by review, indicating that procedural errors of this nature are remediable.

Conclusion: The Court held that the dismissal of the writ petition on this ground was unjustified and prejudicial.

(b) Entitlement to amend Form GSTR-1 and refund application beyond prescribed time limit due to mistake in filing

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The GST Act and associated rules prescribe a one-year time limit for amending Form GSTR-1. Refund claims under Section 54 require correct filing of returns reflecting exports without payment of tax to claim exemption.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: Although the Court did not adjudicate the merits in this judgment, it acknowledged the appellant's position that the mistake in Form GSTR-1 filing prevented acceptance of the refund application. The appellant sought to amend the returns and refund application within the permissible time but was obstructed by the non-availability of the online portal for such amendment.

Key evidence and findings: The appellant's pleadings showed that the refund application was initially allowed as "Nil" due to the mistake and that the appellant intended to amend it subsequently.

Application of law to facts: The inability to amend the return due to technical or procedural hindrances, despite timely application, raised a substantive issue of entitlement to relief.

Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents did not dispute the factual position but relied on the procedural aspects and the dismissal on tagging grounds.

Conclusion: The Court found it appropriate to restore the writ petition for fresh consideration on these substantive issues.

(c) Entitlement to writ of mandamus directing opening of online portal for refund application and amendment

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The power of the Court to issue writs under Articles of the Constitution includes mandamus to compel public authorities to perform statutory duties.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The appellant prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to open the online portal to accept refund applications and amendments. The Court did not decide this relief in the present judgment but implicitly recognized the appellant's right to seek such relief in the context of procedural impediments.

Key evidence and findings: The appellant's inability to amend the return and refund application due to portal restrictions was a factual basis for seeking mandamus.

Application of law to facts: Given the statutory framework requiring timely amendments and refund claims, denial of access to the portal could constitute denial of statutory rights.

Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents did not contest the entitlement to seek such relief but relied on procedural dismissal.

Conclusion: The Court restored the writ petition to enable consideration of such relief on merits.

(d) Prejudice caused by dismissal without adjudication on merits and restoration of writ petition

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Principles of natural justice and fair adjudication require that claims be decided on merits unless barred by law.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the dismissal caused prejudice as the merits of the refund claim were not considered. It held that justice requires setting aside the dismissal and restoring the petition for fresh consideration.

Key evidence and findings: The pleadings and judgment showed no adjudication on merits; the dismissal was purely procedural.

Application of law to facts: The procedural dismissal without merit adjudication was unjust and prejudicial.

Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents accepted that similar mistakes were corrected by review, supporting restoration.

Conclusion: The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the dismissal, and restored the writ petition for fresh hearing.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court held:

"We find from the pleadings in the writ petition and the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge that the vires of Sections 16 (2) and 16 (4) of the GST Act was not an issue raised in the writ petition and therefore, the dismissal of the writ petition has caused prejudice to the appellant."

"Inasmuch as there is no adjudication on the merits of the claim of the appellant/writ petitioner, we are of the considered view that the judgment under appeal is liable to be set aside and the writ petition be restored to file for fresh consideration in accordance with law."

The Court established the principle that procedural dismissal based on irrelevant tagging with other petitions challenging constitutional validity, without adjudicating the substantive issues raised, causes prejudice and warrants restoration of the petition for fresh consideration.

Final determinations:

(i) The dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of