Case Law Details
Ayana Pharma Limited Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court)
Section 54 of GST Act provides that any person claiming refund of any tax and interest, if any, paid on such tax or any amount paid by him, can make an application before the expiry of two years from the relevant date in any such form and manner as may be prescribed. There is a proviso to sub-section 1 which provides that a registered person claiming refund of any balance in the electronic cash ledger in accordance with the provisions of sub-section 6 of Section 49 may also claim such refund in the return furnished under Section 39 in the manner as may be prescribed.
CGST Rule 89 lays down the procedure for filing of an application for refund of tax, interest, penalty, fees or any other amount. Rule provides that any person except the person covered under the Notification issued under Section 55 claiming refund of tax, interest, penalty, fees or other amount paid by him other than the refund of integrated tax paid on goods exported out of India, may file an application electronically in the form GST RFD 01 through the common portal. Relying on the aforesaid Rule 89, it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that claim, if any for refund of any tax has to be by way of an application electronically in the form of GST RFD 01 through the common portal. However, it seems that the respondent No.4 has no idea about Rule 97A of the Rules which starts with the non-obstante clause. Rule 97A clarifies that notwithstanding anything contained in Chapter x of the Rules any reference to electronic filing of an application would include manual filing of the said application.
In view of the above respondent is directed to treat the manual application as an application for refund.
HC dispose of this writ petition with the following directions :
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
