Prime Perfumery Works Vs Asssitant Commissioner of Central Tax (Karnataka High Court)
The Karnataka High Court examined a writ petition challenging a refund rejection order dated 31.01.2024 issued under Section 54 read with Rule 92 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules for the period 2022–23. The petitioner sought quashing of the rejection order passed in Form GST RFD-06 and a direction to the tax authority to sanction the refund application filed in Form GST RFD-01. Ancillary reliefs were also sought as deemed appropriate by the Court.
The material on record showed that the petitioner had exported goods during the year 2022–23 and thereafter filed a refund application on 03.12.2023 seeking refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax. A show cause notice dated 28.12.2023 was issued by the department calling upon the petitioner to explain why the refund claim should not be rejected. The petitioner submitted a reply on 11.01.2024. Subsequently, the first respondent passed the impugned refund rejection order dated 31.01.2024, which led to the filing of the present writ petition.
A perusal of the impugned order revealed that the refund claim was rejected on a single ground, namely, that the petitioner had not furnished a bond or Letter of Undertaking (LUT) in the prescribed form to the jurisdictional Commissioner prior to export of goods, as required under Rule 96A of the CGST Rules. According to the respondent authority, non-submission of the bond/LUT before export disentitled the petitioner from claiming the refund.
