9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 847X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... electronically and in accordance with Circular dated 18th November 2019 issued by the Government of India. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of LAXMI ORGANIC INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ 2021 (12) TMI 63 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has dealt with identical facts and after construing Section 168 of the C.G.S.T. Act, Rule 89 and Rule 97A of the C.G.S.T. Rules has held that the plain and simple construction of Rule 97A is that despite Rule 89 providing for electronic filing of applications for refund on the common portal, in respect of any process or procedure prescribed in Chapter X, any reference to electronic filing of application on the common portal shall, in respect of that process or procedure, include manual filing of the said application - This Court rejected the similar stand taken by the learned counsel for Revenue and held that Rule 97A can not be construed in a manner as sought to be canvassed by the learned counsel for Revenue so as to defeat the purpose of Legislation. This Court accordingly held that the impugned Circular would certainly be applicable to all application filed electronically on the common portal but the impugned Circular canno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent No.2 seeking information as to whether the Respondent No.5 has sought refund of GST in respect of the same transaction. The Petitioner informed the Respondent No.2 by an email sent on the same date that the Respondent No.5 had not sought any refund for the said amount, which was claimed by the Petitioner. 6. On 18th February 2021, the Respondent No.2 rejected the application for refund made by the Petitioner under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, C.G.S.T. Act ) on the ground that the refund application was not filed electronically and not in compliance with the Circular dated 18th November 2019. The Petitioner thus filed this Writ Petition inter-alia praying for a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting the Order dated 18th February 2021 passed by the Respondent No.3 and for writ of mandamus directing the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider and process the application for refund dated 4th September 2020 filed by the petitioner. 7. The Writ petition is opposed by the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 by filing Affidavit-in-Reply. In so far as the Respondent No.5 is concerned, the Respondent No.5 has not applied for any refund in res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r.Raichandani, a counsel of this Court assisted the learned counsel for the Petitioner and furnished a copy of the unreported judgment dated 30th November 2021 of this Court delivered in Writ Petition No. 7861 of 2021, Laxmi Organic Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India Others. The learned counsel for the Petitioner heavily placed reliance on the said judgment dealing with Rule 97 (A) of the C.G.S.T. Rules and also various other provisions relating to refund of G.S.T.. 13. Mr.Walve, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 on the other hand placed reliance on the stand taken by his clients in the Affidavit-in- Reply filed in this Writ Petition. He submits that the Petitioner not having filed the GST refund application electronically, the Petitioner is not entitled to claim refund. He tried to justify the impugned Order passed by the Respondent No.3. 14. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.5 stated that, no reliefs are sought by the Petitioner against the Respondent No.5. Respondent No.5 has not made any claim for refund of GST paid by his client on the said Agreement of Sale between the Petitioner and the Respondent No.5. He submits that, even otherwise the time for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld that the impugned Circular would certainly be applicable to all application filed electronically on the common portal but the impugned Circular cannot affect or control the statutory rule i.e. Rule 97A of the C.G.S.T. Rules or derogate from it. 18. This Court accordingly quashed and set-aside the impugned Order therein and clarified that the said Circular shall be applicable only to applications filed electronically on the common portal but would have no applicability to an application for refund which is filed manually. Then Court permitted the Petitioner therein to file an application afresh for refund manually within a period of 14 days and directed the Superintendent to process the same and to take it its logical conclusion in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of such application for refund. 19. In our view the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Laxmi Organic Industries Ltd. (supra) would squarely apply to the facts of this case. In our view the Circular placed in service by the Respondent No.3 would not bar the application for refund filed manually. In this case the Petitioner even otherwise could not have fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
