Case Law Details
Otsuka Pharmaceutical India Pvt. Ltd Vs Union of India & Ors. (Gujarat High Court)
GST Appeals Revived for Wrongly Calculated Delay from submission of certified copies instead of From the date of Submission of Online Refund Application: Gujarat HC
The Gujarat High Court examined a petition challenging rejection of GST refund appeals on the ground of delay under Rule 108(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The petitioner, a registered manufacturer and exporter of pharmaceutical products, had opted to export goods without payment of tax and sought refund of unutilised input tax credit under Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Refund applications were filed online within the prescribed time in July 2021. Following a show-cause notice, the adjudicating authority found a mismatch between export values declared in invoices and shipping bills, sanctioned the refund only partly, and rejected the balance. The petitioner filed appeals under Section 107 of the CGST Act and submitted certified copies of the orders during pendency. However, the appellate authority, invoking Rule 108(3), treated the submission of certified copies as delayed by 71 to 106 days and dismissed the appeals solely on limitation. Adopting reasons recorded in a contemporaneous decision in connected matters, the Gujarat High Court quashed the rejection orders and remanded the matters for de novo adjudication on merits after granting an opportunity of hearing. The Court clarified that it did not examine the merits and directed completion of the exercise within 12 weeks.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT
1. This petition is arising from the common order passed under Rule 108(3) of the Central Goods & Service Tax Rules, 2017 (for short ‘the Rules’).
The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture and export of pharmaceuticals products and is duly registered under the GST Act. The petitioner, for the period in question, exercised option of exporting goods without payment of tax and seeking refund of unutilised input tax credit as permitted by Section 16 of Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Mon Apr 22 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Jan 31 13:46:21 IST 2026 the Integrated Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the IGST Act’).
2.1 The petitioner made an online application for refund on GST portal within the stipulated time limit in the month of July, 2021.
2.2 After issuance of show-cause notice to the petitioner, the adjudicating authority held that there was difference between the value of exports as mentioned in the invoice and the shipping bill. The petitioner filed reply to such show-cause notice, however the adjudicating authority rejected the submission made by the petitioner that refund is required to be provided as per the shipping bill and passed the Order-in-Original sanctioning partial amount only and rejected the part of the refund claim.
2.3 The petitioner, being aggrieved, preferred appeals online under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The petitioner was thereafter called upon to submit the certified copies of the Order-in-Original. The petitioner submitted such copies during the pendency of the appeals, however the appellate authority, relying upon sub-rule (3) of the Rule 108, calculated the period of delay by observing that the petitioner failed to submit certified copies of the decisions or orders within the period as stipulated under Rule 108 of the Rules and considered the same delay as an inordinate delay ranging from 71 days to 106 days and decline to entertain the appeals on the ground of delay.
2.4 Being aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged impugned order dated 31st January, 2023 rejecting the appeals of the petitioner on the ground of delay.
3. Adopting the reasons passed in order of even date in Special Civil Application No.13209/2023 and allied matters, the impugned order is, accordingly, quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the appellate authority to pass a fresh de novo order on merits after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
4. It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter and the same to be decided by the appellate authority after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law.
4.1 Such exercise shall be completed within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
5. The petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. Notice is discharged.
Author Bio
