Case Law Details
Medicamen Biotech Limited Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court)
It is not in dispute that all the declarations, which are required as per law to claim refund, were uploaded by the petitioner through electronic mode while claiming refund in GST RFD-01. However, the dispute is with regard to declarations referable to Rule 89, sub-rule (2) (d) and Rule 89 (2)(e) of the CGST Rules of 2017. In Para 6 of the writ petition, the petitioner has clearly averred that the GST refund claim application was filed electronically on the GST common portal, i.e., www.gst.gov.in and duly signed using the digital signature certificate of the authorised signatory for GST purposes. It has been further averred that the application was uploaded with the necessary documents, including declarations and undertakings as envisaged in Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST dated 18.11.2019 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs.
There is no dispute raised by the respondents to the aforesaid averments. As far as digital signatures on the declarations are concerned, that is also not in dispute as it would be clear from the abstract of the impugned order which has been quoted hereinabove.
The only reason assigned by the Appellate Authority to declare the sanction for refund as illegal is that declarations were not signed in physical mode before it could be scanned and uploaded through electronic mode. For this purpose, as is apparent from the impugned order, the Appellate Authority has relied upon Circular dated 18.11.2019 (Annexure-10).
A reading of provisions of Rule 89 of the CGST Rules of 2017 would show that there is no specific requirement that the declaration must necessarily be signed in physical mode.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
