The Bombay High Court recently granted partial relief to an aggrieved Petitioner, granting restoration of Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) refund application made in Form GST RFD 01 back to file, while also slapping the Petitioner with costs of Rs. 2 Lakh to be paid to the Deputy Commissioner, Chakala – 501, Nodal-12 Large Taxpayer Unit, being the second respondent in the Matter.
The Writ Petition was instituted by Raiden Infotech India Private Ltd. against the State of Maharashtra and other Governmental Machinery, impugning an order dated 30.04.2024 by which the petitioner’s application for a refund was rejected.
Complete Supreme Court Judgment on GST from 2017 to 2024 with Free E-Book Access, Click here
Appearing for the Petitioner were Senior Advocate Darius B Shroff, Jasmine Dixit and Mahir C. instructed by UBR Legal Advocate, raising strong contentions of violation of natural justice alleging that the Petitioner’s appeal had been rejected due to alleged procedural deficiencies; however, no deficiency memo had been issued to the Petitioner while preventing them from refiling the appeal after clearing the shortcomings.
Relying on the decision of the Bombay High Court in M/s Knowledge Capital Services Private Limited Vs. Union of India and Ors.(2023),Shroff averred that in case of deficiencies in the GST refund application, the applicant is to be served with a deficiency form in GST RFD 03 following which a fresh application devoid of any defects may be filed.
Additional Government Pleader, Amar Mishra contested the submissions, maintaining that a show-cause notice had been issued to the Petitioner, but had not been responded to.
Complete Supreme Court Judgment on GST from 2017 to 2024 with Free E-Book Access, Click here
The Division Bench of Justices M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, observed that though prima facie no GST RFD 03 had been issued to the petitioner, the petitioner did not venture to avail the opportunity granted to raise contentions towards the show-cause notice. The Bombay High Court further stated that merely seeking adjournments and then contending that the adjournment applications had not been paid heed to do not qualify as violations of natural justice.
Consequently, the Bombay High Court slapped the Petitioner with a cost of Rs. 2 Lakh to be paid to the second respondent while setting aside the impugned order and restoring the Petitioner’s
refund application back to file for meritorious adjudication.
In addition, the Respondents were directed to issue intimation under form GST RFD 03 if any deficiencies were to be found in the Petitioner’s prospective refund application.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
