9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 561X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es not arise. Filing of an undertaking - HELD THAT:- Insofar as giving an undertaking in writing to the proper officer that the petitioner shall not file an appeal is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated before this court that the petitioner shall not file an appeal against the order rejecting its refund. Moreover, with a view to comply with the requirements of the Explanation to rule 93 of the CG ST Rules, it would also file an undertaking as required. The amount has not been recredited not on account of non compliance with the provisions of the Explanation to rule 93 of the CG ST Rules, but since there is no mechanism for recrediting the amount to the Electronic Credit Ledger. In either case, the court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the alternative relief prayed for in the petition. Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7397 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 11-4-2019 - MS HARSHA DEVANI AND MR BHARGAV D. KARIA, JJ. For The Petitioner (s) : MR ANAND NAINAWATI (5970) For The Respondent (s) : MR NIRZAR S DESAI (2117) ORAL JUDGMENT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... structure. ii) Refund of accumulated input tax credit on account of supplies made to SEZ without payment of tax. iii) Refund of accumulated input tax credit on account of exports without payment of integrated goods and services tax. 5. In terms of the procedure envisaged under the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the CG ST Rules ) and the relevant notifications and circulars clarifying the process of manual filing of refund claims in Form GST RFD01A, the refund claims were manually filed in FormRFD01A. Upon submission of such claim, refund ARN receipt was also generated. It is the case of the petitioner that since online refund procedure was still facing teething problems, formal refund claim, as instructed, was also filed manually wherein the petitioner submitted the copies of RFD01A, ARN receipt, copy of Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) and GSTR3B filed for the relevant period. The total refund claim of the petitioner was ₹ 17,55,13,818/. 6. Rule 90(3) of the CG ST Rules provides that where any deficiencies are noticed, the proper officer shall communicate the deficiencies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... requested the third respondent to expedite the disposal of the refund applications. However, subsequently, by the impugned order dated 7.3.2018, the third respondent rejected the refund claims on the ground that the petitioner has failed to submit compliance/file a fresh refund application within the prescribed time limit, that is, thirty days in terms of Circular No. 17/17/2017GST dated 15.11.2017 in respect of deficiency memos issued on 16.1.2018. The petitioner by letter dated 13.3.2018 requested the third respondent to follow the proper procedure as envisaged under the provisions of the CG ST Act read with CG ST Rules. On 15.3.2018, the petitioner sent a reminder letter to the third respondent reiterating the contents of letter dated 15.3.2018 and also stated that the refund claims were rejected on the grounds not envisaged in law and withholding of credit was contrary to the Government objectives. On 22.3.2018, the officials of the petitioners met the third respondent and requested the finalisation of the refund claims by crediting the Electronic Credit Ledger through the common portal in terms of rule 93(2) of the CG ST Rules. In furtherance thereof, the petitioner also addre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T03. 11. On the other hand, Mr. Nirzar Desai, learned senior standing counsel for the respondents, submitted that resort can be made to the provisions of rule 93 of the CG ST Rules provided that in terms of the Explanation thereto, either the appeal is finally rejected or if the claimant gives an undertaking in writing to the proper officer that he shall not file an appeal. It was submitted that in this case the petitioner has not submitted such undertaking with regard to nonfiling of the appeal against the rejection order, and hence, in the absence of the requirements of rule 93 being fulfilled, the question of recrediting the amount does not arise. 12. In the rejoinder, Mr. Nainawati invited the attention of the court to the status report of the complaint made by the petitioner to the Prime Minister s Office, Exhibit 3 to the affidavitinrejoinder, wherein it has been stated that the GST PMTO3 has already been issued but the rejected amount has not been recredited in the Electronic Credit Ledger since there is no mechanism to recredit the rejected amount to the Electronic Credit Ledger of the claimant online on the common portal. It was submitted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
