Ankur Agarwal Vs Central Board of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Anr. (Delhi High Court)
In a recent directive addressing a procedural hurdle on the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) portal, the Delhi High Court has instructed the GSTN authorities to provide assistance to a ‘risky exporter’ petitioner who was unable to submit a mandatory undertaking required for the re-crediting of rejected Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) refunds. The court’s order aims to resolve a technical issue preventing the petitioner from availing a mechanism provided by the tax department itself.
The case, titled Ankur Agarwal Vs Central Board of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Anr., came before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, operating a sole proprietorship firm named M/s Safecon Lifesciences involved in exporting Veterinary medicines, had been flagged as a ‘Risky Exporter’ by the Directorate General of Analytics and Risk Management (DGARM). This tagging led to the withholding and subsequent non-processing of the petitioner’s IGST refund applications.
One specific refund application filed by the petitioner with the Uttarakhand GST Commissionerate was formally rejected by the concerned Deputy Commissioner in Rudrapur. However, the rejection order included a provision allowing the petitioner an avenue to recover the IGST amount that had already been paid via Input Tax Credit (ITC). According to the Deputy Commissioner’s order, upon rejection of the refund application, the petitioner had two options: either file an appeal against the decision or file an online undertaking for the issuance of Form GST PMT-03. This PMT-03 form is the mechanism through which the rejected amount is re-credited to the taxpayer’s electronic credit ledger.
