PCK Cotton Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors. (Bombay High Court)
Bombay HC: GST portal limitations cannot defeat refund claim; permits manual filing of consolidated application following withdrawal of earlier claims
Summary: The Bombay High Court considered a writ petition filed by an exporter of cotton bales seeking permission to submit a consolidated GST refund application for accumulated Input Tax Credit relating to December 2017, January 2018 and February 2018. The petitioner had initially filed separate online refund applications for these periods but subsequently withdrew them with the stated intention of filing a consolidated application. The Department opposed the request, arguing that the earlier withdrawal and re-credit of ITC prevented the petitioner from pursuing the same refund claim again. It also raised objections regarding the substantial delay and the petitioner’s pursuit of an alternative remedy. The petitioner maintained that the withdrawal was not unconditional and relied on the Bombay High Court’s earlier decision in Laxmi Organic Industries Ltd. v. Union of India concerning manual filing under Rule 97A. Considering that the GST portal did not provide a facility for submitting the consolidated refund application online, the High Court permitted the petitioner to file the application manually within two weeks. The respondents were directed to consider the application on its own merits and in accordance with law within six weeks thereafter, after hearing the applicant. Importantly, the Court expressly left open the questions of limitation, maintainability and the consequences of delay. The order therefore permitted the refund application to be submitted and examined but did not sanction the refund itself.
Argued by Adv. Bharat Raichandani i/b UBR Legal.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
2. Learned Addl.G.P. vehemently opposed the Petition submitting that there is no provision for filing an application for refund as such a course is clearly barred by the stand taken by the Petitioner himself vide a communication dated 29th August, 2018 at page no.39. It is the submission of learned Addl.G.P. that the Petitioner himself has withdrawn the refund applications filed for December, 2017 to February 2018 and requested for issuance of an Order for re- crediting of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on account of refund application. It is submitted that once such a stand has been taken by the Petitioner, it is then not open for the Petitioner to file the refund application for the very said period.
3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the application made by the Petitioner for withdrawal of the refund applications was not unconditional but the Petitioner wanted to file consolidated refund application for a period of three months i.e. December, 2017 to February, 2018. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court in Laxmi Organic Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors. [(2021) SCC OnLine Bom 10539] in support of his contentions so far as Rule 97A for manual filing and process of the application is concerned.
4. Learned Addl.G.P. vehemently submitted that the Petitioner has initially made an online application for grant of refund on 18th July, 2018, 26th July, 2018 and 1st August, 2018 for the monthly periods December, 2017, January, 2018 and February, 2018 respectively towards accumulated ITC on inward supplies used for export of goods. Thereafter, the Petitioner by letter dated 29th August, 2018 withdrew all the refund applications for the reasons best known to it and requested to re-credit the ITC to credit ledger. Accordingly, the Nodal Officer issued Form RFD-06 for withdrawal of refund applications on the system. Therefore, there is no question of regenerating the earlier ARNs as the ITC refunded is already recredited to the Petitioner’s ECL on 7th December, 2018 for the periods December, 2017 to February, 2018 respectively
5. It is submitted by learned Addl.G.P. that the present Petition is filed after a period of more than six and a half years from the impugned period i.e. FY-2017-2018. As regards the delay, the Petitioner is trying to take the shelter of filing of Appeal as he was pursuing the wrong remedy, however, the Appeal was filed in August, 2022 against the adjudication Order dated 10th May, 2022. Therefore, under the pretext of pursing the wrong remedy, the Petitioner cannot try to revive its stale claim of the period FY-2017-2018 after the period of more than six and a half years.
6. The Petitioner contends that he wants to file a consolidatedapplication and the previous withdrawal was not unconditional. Considering that there is no facility for filing the consolidated application for refund online, the Petitioner is permitted to file such an application manually within a period of two weeks which shall be considered by the Respondents on its own merits and in accordance with law within a period of six weeks thereafter, after hearing the application. It is made clear that, even the aspect of delay in preferring the application and its consequences may be appropriately dealt with by the Respondents. We make no observations on either the maintainability of the application or on delay in filing the application.
7. In view of above and keeping all contentions of the parties open, Writ Petition No.603 of 2025 stands disposed of.
