Case Law Details

Case Name : Tvl. Mehar Tex Vs Commissioner of Central GST And Central Excise (Madras High Court)
Appeal Number : W.P.(MD)Nos. 22996, 22999 & 23001 of 2019
Date of Judgement/Order : 18/03/2021
Related Assessment Year :

Tvl. Mehar Tex Vs Commissioner of Central GST And Central Excise (Madras High Court)

The Hon’ble Madras High Court in Tvl. Mehar Tex v. the Commissioner of CGST & Ors. [W.P.(MD) Nos. 22996, 22999 & 23001 of 2019 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos. 19733, 19736 & 19739 of 2019 dated March,18 2021] set aside the order rejecting refund claim of CGST and IGST of the assessee wherein, the entire refund liability of Input Tax Credit (ITC) got auto populated under a single head i.e. State Goods and Services Tax (SGST) instead of SGST, Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) and Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST). Held that, if the assessee was otherwise eligible to refund, the refund claim ought not to be denied on the ground of technical glitches and error occurred due to auto-population in Goods and Service Tax Network (GSTN) software. Nothing can be more unfair.

Facts:

Tvl. Mehar Tex (“the Petitioner”) is an exporter and has made zero rated sales during the months of October 2017, November 2017 and February 2018. Accordingly, Petitioner stated that he is entitled to refund claim of SGST for the October month, CGST for the November month and CGST, SGST and IGST for the February month. However, when the refund applications were uploaded, the entire claim got consolidated and figured under the head SGST alone.

While considering the refund applications, the Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (“the Respondent”) restricted the refund claim to the extent of the Petitioner’s liability for the respective months only under the head of SGST under Rule 92 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (“CGST Rules”) and issued notice to show cause as to why refund of CGST and IGST should not be rejected. Subsequently the Petitioner replied to the above show cause notice stating that the entire refund claim got auto-populated under a single head of SGST.

However, the Respondent rejected the refund claims made in respect of  CGST and IGST on the ground that the Petitioner has not furnished any documentary proof in support of his claims.

Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Respondent, this petition has been filed.

Issue:

Whether the Petitioner’s claim for refund of CGST and IGST can be denied on the ground that the entire refund amount got consolidated under one head i.e. SGST, due to the technical error and new system of software in GSTN?

Held:

The Hon’ble Madras High Court in W.P.(MD) Nos. 22996, 22999 & 23001 of 2019 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos. 19733, 19736 & 19739 of 2019 dated March 18, 2021 held as under:

  • Noted that, as per the order passed by the Respondent, the supporting invoices and documents furnished as proof of exports by the Petitioner were in order, therefore, the Petitioner is eligible to get refund claim under all three heads namely IGST, CGST and SGST.
  • Observed that, the Petitioner cannot be expected to produce some proof, due to error the error on the part of any software in GSTN, wherein, the entire refund amount of ITC got auto-populated under the head of SGST instead of SGST, CGST and IGST.
  • Further, noted that the Petitioner in reply to show cause notice had categorically stated that the entire refund amount got auto-population under single head of SGST. Moreover, the Petitioner had also filed the refund application manually.
  • Held that, refund ought not to be denied only on the grounds of technical glitches and error that occurred due to auto-population. Nothing can be more unfair.
  • Set aside the order passed by the Respondent to the extent that rejected the refund claim of the Petitioner. Remanded back the matter to the Respondent directed the Respondent to verify the Petitioner’s refund claim and accordingly refund the amount to the Petitioner within a period of 8 weeks.

Relevant Provisions:

Rule 92 of the CGST Rules:

“92. Order sanctioning refund.-

(1) Where, upon examination of the application, the proper officer is satisfied that a refund under sub-section (5) of section 54 is due and payable to the applicant, he shall make an order in FORM GST RFD-06 sanctioning the amount of refund to which the applicant is entitled, mentioning therein the amount, if any, refunded to him on a provisional basis under sub-section (6) of section 54, amount adjusted against any outstanding demand under the Act or under any existing law and the balance amount refundable:

Provided that in cases where the amount of refund is completely adjusted against any outstanding demand under the Act or under any existing law, an order giving details of the adjustment shall be issued in Part A of FORM GST RFD-07.

(1A)Where, upon examination of the application of refund of any amount paid as tax other than the refund of tax paid on zero-rated supplies or deemed export, the proper officer is satisfied that a refund under sub-section (5) of section 54 of the Act is due and payable to the applicant, he shall make an order in FORM RFD-06 sanctioning the amount of refund to be paid, in cash, proportionate to the amount debited in cash against the total amount paid for discharging tax liability for the relevant period, mentioning therein the amount adjusted against any outstanding demand under the Act or under any existing law and the balance amount refundable and for the remaining amount which has been debited from the electronic credit ledger for making payment of such tax, the proper officer shall issue FORM GST PMT-03 re-crediting the said amount as Input Tax Credit in electronic credit ledger.

(2) Where the proper officer or the Commissioner is of the opinion that the amount of refund is liable to be withheld under the provisions of sub-section (10) or, as the case may be, sub-section (11) of section 54, he shall pass an order in Part B of FORM GST RFD-07 informing him the reasons for withholding of such refund.

(3) Where the proper officer is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that the whole or any part of the amount claimed as refund is not admissible or is not payable to the applicant, he shall issue a notice in FORM GST RFD-08 to the applicant, requiring him to furnish a reply in FORM GST RFD-09 within a period of fifteen days of the receipt of such notice and after considering the reply, make an order in FORM GST RFD-06 sanctioning the amount of refund in whole or part, or rejecting the said refund claim and the said order shall be made available to the applicant electronically and the provisions of sub-rule (1) shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to the extent refund is allowed:

Provided that no application for refund shall be rejected without giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard.

(4) Where the proper officer is satisfied that the amount refundable under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (1A) or sub-rule (2) is payable to the applicant under sub-section (8) of section 54, he shall make an order in FORM GST RFD-06 and issue a payment order in FORM GST RFD-05 for the amount of refund and the same shall be electronically credited to any of the bank accounts of the applicant mentioned in his registration particulars and as specified in the application for refund on the basis of a consolidated payment advice.

Provided that the order issued in FORM GST RFD-06 shall not be required to be revalidated by the proper officer:

Provided further that the payment order in FORM GST RFD-05 shall be required to be revalidated where the refund has not been disbursed within the same financial year in which the said payment order was issued.

(4A) The Central Government shall disburse the refund based on the consolidated payment advice issued under sub-rule (4).

(5) Where the proper officer is satisfied that the amount refundable under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (1A) or sub-rule (2) is not payable to the applicant under sub-section (8) of section 54, he shall make an order in FORM GST RFD-06 and issue a payment order in FORM GST RFD-05, for the amount of refund to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.”

FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) appearing for the third respondent.

2. The petitioner has registered himself with the third respondent and they are also filing monthly returns under the Goods and Service Tax Act. The petitioner’s case is that they had made zero rated sales during the months October 2017, November 2017 and February 2018(exports). According to the petitioner, they are therefore entitled to corresponding refund under all the three heads, namely, SGST, CGST and IGST. However, when the refund applications were uploaded, the entire claim got consolidated and figured under the head of SGST alone. While considering the refund applications, the second respondent restricted the refund claim to the extent of the petitioner’s liability for the respective months only under the head of SGST under Rule 92 of CGST Rules, 2017 and rejected the refund claims made in respect of the other heads. Questioning the same, these writ petitions came to be filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions.

4. The respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit and the learned Standing counsel took me through the averments set out therein.

5. The stand of the respondents is that the respondents cannot be faulted for having passed the impugned The respondents considered the claim of refund made by the petitioner under the head of SGST and ly to a limited extent and granted relief to that extent. If according to the petitioner, there was some technical error due to technical glitches, it was the responsibility of the petitioner to have brought it to the notice of the concerned authority for taking immediate action. In the case on hand, the petitioner has not done so. Therefore, the learned Standing counsel called upon this Court to sustain the orders impugned in these writ petitions.

6. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record.

7. There is no doubt that the petitioner is an exporter and that he has made zero rated sales during the relevant months, namely, October 2017, November 2017 and February 2018. He was obviously entitled to refund for the month of October 2017 under SGST and under CGST for the month of November 2017, he was entitled to refund and for the month of February 2018, he was entitled to refund under the three heads, namely, IGST, SGST and CGST. In fact in the impugned order, it has been mentioned that supporting invoices furnished by the assessee are found to be in It is also mentioned in the impugned order that the documents furnished as proof of exports were verified and they are found to be in order.

8. Therefore, the only question is whether the petitioner’s claim for refund on CGST and IGST can be denied on the ground that his claim got consolidated under one head of SGST. The petitioner’s specific case is that due to error and new system of software in GST, the entire refund liability of ITC got auto populated under the head of SGST instead of CGST, SGST and IGST. This stand of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner has not furnished any documentary proof in support of his claim.

9. When the petitioner has received show cause notice for the rejection of the refund application, the petitioner in his reply dated 24.01.2019 and 14.05.2019, had categorically stated that they filed refund application indicating that under a single head, namely, SGST. If due to error on the part of any software in GSTN, this had occurred obviously, the petitioner cannot be expected to produce proof for the same. In any event, the petitioner had submitted the refund applications manually also. If the petitioner was otherwise eligible to refund, on the ground of technical glitches and error having occurred due to auto-population, the petitioner ought not to be denied relief. Nothing can be more unfair.

10. Therefore, the orders impugned in these writ petitions are set aside to the extent they reject the refund claim of the petitioner made under CGST and IGST. The matter is remitted to the file of the second respondent. The second respondent will verify if the petitioner is otherwise eligible for If the second respondent is satisfied, refund will be made to the petitioner herein. This exercise shall be done within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

11. These writ petitions stand allowed No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

****

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon.

Download Judgment/Order

Author Bio

More Under Goods and Services Tax

One Comment

  1. Murugesha says:

    GST software and GST Department is one of d worst department in statutory.
    GST refunds communication r not through online, we r struggling fr our refunds since Jan 2020, dept. Officers doesn’t hv common sense to see the mails itself.

    Worst experience of Bangalore South commissionerate nd Jurisdiction.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

June 2021
M T W T F S S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930