Calcutta HC Allows Refiling of GST Refund Applications Due to Non-Communication of Deficiencies on Portal [Read Order]

Tarinika & ors,petitioner-assessee,filed refund applications in Form GSTRFD 01 and submitted copies of the same. They argued that under Rule 90(3) of the West Bengal Goods and Service Tax/ Central Goods and Service Tax (WBGST/CGST) Rules, 2017, if any deficiencies were found, the proper officer had to communicate them in Form RFD 03 within 15 days through the portal. However, no such communication was made.

Instead, they found on the portal that deficiency memos were uploaded, but these did not mention any specific reasons for withholding the refund. This led them to approach the Court.

Step by Step Handbook for Filing GST Appeals Click here

On 1st May, 2025, the Court examined the screenshots and found that the uploaded memos lacked any attached document showing the deficiencies. It directed the respondents to file an affidavit enclosing the RFD 03 form downloaded from the portal.

Later, on 11th June, 2025, although the respondents sought more time, the petitioners again placed on record a screenshot from 10th June, 2025, which confirmed that the uploaded memos still did not specify any reasons.

The matter was later taken up for final hearing. Mr. Bhattacharya, appearing for the petitioners, submitted an affidavit along with the deficiency memo, which mentioned that the data provided in the annexures seemed improper and could not be verified from ICEGATE.

During the hearing, the petitioners accessed their portal in the presence of the respondents’ counsel and the concerned officer. It was observed that the deficiency memo uploaded in Form RFD 03 did not contain any supporting document or specific reason for the rejection. The petitioners submitted a screenshot of the portal, which was accepted by the Court.

Know How to File Appeals in GSTAT Click here

Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury noted that under Section 54 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, a refund application had to be filed in Form RFD 01 within two years, along with the required documents. If any deficiencies were found, Rule 90(3) of the Rules required the officer to communicate them electronically in Form RFD 03 through the common portal.

The time between filing the application and receiving the deficiency memo would be excluded from the two-year limit.

In this case, although the officer may have identified deficiencies, they were not visible on the petitioner’s portal. The bench found that the right to refile the application would arise only when the deficiencies were properly communicated through the portal. Since that did not happen, the petitioner could not be faulted.

The Court directed the respondents to raise this issue with the appropriate authority and allowed the petitioner to refile the refund application, treating the deficiency memo as communicated on that day. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

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