Calcutta HC directs Assessee to file Fresh Refund Application u/s 54 of CGST Act as Statute mandates it after Rectifying Deficiency [Read Order]

The Calcutta High Court has directed the assessee to file a fresh refund application as per section 54 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act (CGST), 2017 as the statute mandates it after rectifying the deficiency.

This intra-court appeal by the revenue is directed against the order dated 3rd October, 2024 in WPA 19890 of 2024.The said writ petition was filed by the respondent herein for a direction upon the appellant/department to process the refund application and refund the amounts claimed therein in the light of Section 54 of the CGST Act along with interest.

Get a Complete Kit of Essential Books for Daily Practice, Click Here

The writ petition has been disposed of by directing the appellant to take appropriate steps and rectify the deficiencies pointed out by the department in the Form GST RFD – 03 and such application was directed to be processed within a time frame.  When the appellant/department alleged that the respondent/assessee, Abhishek Ramisetty was not diligent in processing his application, they also should have been diligent in processing the appeal and should have filed the appeal within the period of limitation. So whatever applies to the assessee will equally apply to the department.

Non-Payment Of Requisite Fee under CGST Act not a ground to dismiss GST Appeal: Punjab and Haryana HC [Read Order]

The undisputed facts are that the respondent/writ petitioner filed three refund applications in the statutory format, namely, GST RFD – 01 for the period April, 2020 to March, 2021, April, 2021 to March, 2022 and April, 2022 to March, 2023. These applications were made on 19.5.2023, 20.5.2023 and 22.5.2023. The department uploaded a deficiency memo in GST RFD – 03 on 26.5.2023, 30.5.2023 and

30.5.2023 by selecting the option “supporting documents attached are incomplete”.

According to the writ petitioner, no details of the purported deficiency in the refund applications were uploaded in the common portal by the department and in this regard, the screen shots of the common portal were filed to show that the deficiencies were not communicated. On account of this, the writ petitioner would contend that they were unable to decipher as to on what grounds the refund applications were returned as defective. After a reasonable period of time the writ petition was filed.

Know How to Investigate Books of Accounts and Other Documents, Click Here

 In the writ petition, the deficiencies based on which the applications for refund would not be processed was submitted before the writ court by the standing counsel for the department and the statutory provisions were referred to, namely, the second proviso to Section 54(3) and Section 54(3)(ii) of the Act and Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017 and Rule 89(2)(h) was also referred to and it was pointed out that these are the deficiencies. In the portal all that the assessee was informed under the Deficiency Column “supporting documents attached are incomplete”.

ITC u/s 16(2)(c) of CGST Act Denied: Kerala HC Allows Benefit of Circular [Read Order]

Therefore, it is not in dispute that the assessee was not made known of the defects which they are required to rectify. The bench found that it is a statutory mandate in terms of sub- rule (3) of Rule 9 which mandates that where any deficiencies are noticed the proper officer was communicated to the application in Form GST RFD – 03 through the common portal electronically, requiring him to file a fresh refund application after rectifying of such deficiencies. If the deficiencies noticed are not communicated to the assessee, obviously they would not be in a position to rectify the deficiencies and file a fresh refund application after rectification.

Get a Handbook on TDS Including TCS as Amended up to Finance Act 2024, Click Here

A division bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) held that the Single Bench was fully justified in permitting the writ petitioner to cure the deficiencies and submit the refund application which has been directed to be processed. As could be seen from the impugned order the deficiencies are all not substantive in nature but more procedural in nature. If that be so, the assessee should be given an opportunity to rectify the deficiencies. The court viewed that the direction issued by the single bench was just and proper and calls for no interference.

Further held that since the statute mandates a fresh refund application after rectification of deficiencies has to be filed,the bench slightly modify the direction issued by the Single Bench by directing the respondent/writ petitioner to rectify all the deficiencies pointed out by the department which was placed before the writ court and recorded in the impugned order and upon fully rectifying the defects, a fresh application for refund shall be uploaded by the respondent/writ petitioner within a period of two weeks.

“If the portal is unable to accept online filing, then the respondent/writ petitioner is permitted to file a manual application which shall be processed in terms of the direction issued by the  Single Bench”, the bench further added.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates