Case Law Details
M/S Garden Silk Mills Ltd Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court)
The sole controversy that remains to be decided in the present case is, whether the petitioner is entitled to recredit of the amount of Rs.17,55,13,818/ on the basis of Form GST RFDPMT 03 issued by the respondents in its Electronic Credit Ledger?
Subrule (2) of rule 93 of the CG&ST Rules provides that where any amount claimed as refund is rejected under rule 92, either fully or partly, the amount debited, to the extent of the rejection, shall be recredited to the Electronic Credit Ledger by an order made in FORM GST PMTO3. The Explanation thereto says that for the purposes of the rule, a refund shall be deemed to be rejected, if the appeal is finally rejected or if the claimant gives an undertaking in writing to the proper officer that he shall not file an appeal.
In the present case, it is an admitted position that the petitioner has not filed any appeal, and hence, the question of the appeal being rejected does not arise. Insofar as giving an undertaking in writing to the proper officer that the petitioner shall not file an appeal is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated before this court that the petitioner shall not file an appeal against the order rejecting its refund. Moreover, with a view to comply with the requirements of the Explanation to rule 93 of the CG&ST Rules, it would also file an undertaking as required.
However, as is apparent from the above referred status report, the amount has not been recredited not on account of non compliance with the provisions of the Explanation to rule 93 of the CG&ST Rules, but since there is no mechanism for recrediting the amount to the Electronic Credit Ledger. In either case, the court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the alternative relief prayed for in the petition.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
