Ankur Agarwal Vs Central Board of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Anr (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court, in the case of Ankur Agarwal Vs Central Board of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Anr, addressed a procedural deadlock faced by an exporter, M/s Safecon Lifesciences, regarding the re-crediting of a rejected Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) refund amount. The core issue was the inability of the petitioner, who was tagged as a “Risky Exporter” by the Directorate General of Analytics and Risk Management (DGARM), to file an online undertaking using Form PMT-03 to obtain a re-credit of the rejected refund amount, a requirement stipulated by the State GST authority.
Delhi High Court Addresses Re-Crediting of IGST Refund for ‘Risky Exporter’
Background of the Dispute
The petitioner, an exporter of Veterinary medicines, had their IGST refunds withheld after being flagged as a “Risky Exporter” by the DGARM. In one of the refund applications, the Deputy Commissioner, Rudrapur (under the Uttarakhand GST Commissionerate), rejected the claim. The rejection order provided the petitioner with two options: either file an appeal or file an online undertaking for the issuance of Form PMT-03 to re-credit the rejected amount back to the Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL).
