Case Law Details
Jain International Vs Commissioner of Delhi Goods (Delhi High Court)
Admittedly, till date the petitioner‟s refund application dated 4th November, 2019 has not been processed. As neither any acknowledgment in FORM GST RFD-02 has been issued nor any deficiency memo has been issued in RFD-03 within time line of fifteen days, the refund application would be presumed to be complete in all respects in accordance with subrule (2), (3) and (4) of Rule 89 of CGST/DGST Rules.
To allow the respondent to issue a deficiency memo today would amount to enabling the Respondent to process the refund application beyond the statutory timelines as provided under Rule 90 of the CGST Rules, referred above. This could then also be construed as rejection of the petitioner‟s initial application for refund as the petitioner would thereafter have to file a fresh refund application after rectifying the alleged deficiencies. This would not only delay the petitioner‟s right to seek refund, but also impair petitioner‟s right to claim interest from the relevant date of filing of the original application for refund as provided under the Rules.
Moreover, the respondent‟s prayer to raise a deficiency memo is a hyper-technical plea as admittedly, all the relevant documents have been annexed with the present writ petition and the respondent is satisfied about their authenticity.
Consequently, this Court is of the view that the respondent has lost the right to point out any deficiency, in the petitioner‟s refund application, at this belated stage.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
