IGST Refunds Withheld Over ‘Risky Exporter’ Tag and Portal Issues: Delhi HC Directs GSTIN and Uttarakhand GST to Enable Re-Credit Without PMT-03 [Read Order]

The High Court of Delhi directed GSTIN and the Uttarakhand Goods and Service Tax (GST) Department to enable the re-credit of Integrated Goods and Service Tax (IGST) refunds for a petitioner flagged as a ‘Risky Exporter,’ addressing both the withholding of refunds and portal access issues, without requiring PMT-03 submission.

Ankur Agarwal,petitioner-assessee, operated a sole proprietorship, M/s Safecon Lifesciences, which exported veterinary medicines. The Directorate General of Analytics and Risk Management (DGARM) had flagged him as a 'Risky Exporter,' leading to the withholding of his IGST refunds and preventing the processing of his refund applications. He was registered under the Uttarakhand GST Commissionerate at Rudrapur with GSTIN 05AHQPA3114Q1Z9.

One of his refund applications was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner, Rudrapur. To facilitate the re-credit of the IGST already paid through Input Tax Credit adjustments, he was required to provide an undertaking.

The petitioner, after the refund application was rejected, had the option to either file an appeal or submit an undertaking online to obtain PMT-03 for the rejected amount.

He stated that he was ready to provide the undertaking as required by the State GST office but could not file PMT-03 because he lacked access to the relevant portal. Therefore, he filed the petition seeking portal access.

Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Shail Jain noted that the petitioner had tried several times to submit the undertaking through the GST portal and had contacted the help desk without success. He sought only to submit PMT-03 forms for all his applications. The Court observed that the issue was minor and could be resolved with the GST Network’s help.

Since the prescribed procedure was not working, the petitioner was directed to approach the GSTN officer at Aerocity, New Delhi, on 14th May 2025. The officer was instructed to assist him in uploading the PMT-03 forms within a week. The petition and any pending applications were disposed of on these terms.

On 10th July 2025, the CGST Department requested more time, stating that Rule 86 of the CGST Rules did not cover the procedure directed by the Court. The GST officer was asked to be present on the next hearing date.

On 8th August 2025, the Assistant Manager (Legal) of GST Network appeared and stated that Rule 86(3) did not apply and PMT-03 was not triggered, as the claim amount was never debited from the petitioner’s ledger.

The Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) counsel submitted that the petitioner need not upload PMT-03 and the refund could be processed by the Uttarakhand GST officer. At the petitioner’s request, the matter was adjourned.

The CGST Department counsel, stated that PMT-03 did not need to be uploaded, as no debit had occurred in the petitioner’s electronic credit ledger under Rule 89. GSTIN confirmed this after consulting the GST Policy Wing.

The Court noted that the main issue was how the petitioner’s refund could be credited. It was undisputed that IGST had been deposited at the time of export and reflected in GSTR-01 and 03.

Since the matter between the petitioner, the Uttarakhand GST Department, and GSTIN remained unresolved, the Court added the GST State Commissioner, Rudraprayag, Uttarakhand, as a party to assist in processing the refund. Notices were directed to be sent to the department and its Standing Counsel.

The amended memo of parties and the order were to be communicated to GSTIN. The writ petition was not disposed of and was restored to its original number. GSTIN also assured the Court that it would coordinate with the State GST Department to clarify the position. The matter was listed for 31st October 2025.

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