9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner by respondent no.6 for the month of July, 2019. Also, upon exchange of pleadings, there is no dispute that the application for refund was filed by the petitioner manually, on 27.09.2019 yet the same was not processed and the refund was not directed to be paid within a period of sixty days therefrom. Once the application had been processed and or order passed, which has attained finality, the respondents cannot escape the plain effect of the same. They also cannot escape the liability of interest that arises on non-compliance of the same. Respondent no.6 shall refund the entire amount of ₹ 1,28,50,535/- together with interest from the date against 27.11.2019 till the date of issuance of the demand draft @ 6%. The respondents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ittedly been processed. Though, under Rule 54(7) of the Rules, the said application should have been processed and necessary order passed within a period of sixty days, however, the order of refund was passed beyond that period of sixty days, on 06.01.2020. Therefore, by virtue of Section 56 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, interest @ 6% from the date of expiry of 60 days contemplated under Section 54(7) of that Act, till the date of actual payment of refund, also became due. 4. Admittedly, neither the amount of refund awarded under the order dated 06.01.2020 nor any interest has been paid to the petitioner, till date. By earlier order last opportunity had been allowed to the respondents to either pay up the entire amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same could not have been processed by the said respondent no.5. Upon activation of the GST portal on 26.09.2019, the application made by the petitioner and the further process made by respondent no.6 should have been through online mode only. He has vehemently urged that the said deficiency of procedure was intimated by respondent no.5 to the respondent no.6, vide earlier communications dated 20.07.2020 and 27.08.2020. Therefore, he claims no interest is due to the petitioner and that the refund may be paid only after due compliance is made by the petitioner and respondent no.6 by logging in the particulars of the refund and the refund order on the GST portal, through online mode, only. 9. The aforesaid contentions do not bring ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffect of law arising from Rule 97A of the Rules. It is a settled principle in law that the delegated legislation would stand on a higher pedestal over a pure administrative instruction. 11. So long as Rule 97A remains on the Rule book, the Circular cannot take away the plain effect of the said Rule 97A. Therefore, the Circular could only provide a directory or an optional mode, to process a refund claim. Second, in any case, since the Circular itself was issued on 18.11.2019 i.e. well after the application dated 27.09.2019 had been filed by the petitioner, the same could not be pressed into service by the respondents. Third, and more crucially, the respondents have themselves processed the application filed by the petitioner and passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
