GST Refund Deficiency Memo Invalid Beyond Rule 90(2) Scope: Kerala HC

Abe Service Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner (Kerala High Court)

Summary: The Kerala High Court considered a batch of writ petitions filed by the same petitioner, Abe Service Private Limited, challenging deficiency memos issued in connection with applications seeking refund of GST paid on educational consultancy services provided to foreign educational establishments. In WP(C) No. 21135 of 2026, the deficiency memo cited four grounds: incorrect selection of the refund category as “Any Other” instead of “Refund of IGST paid on Zero-rated supply”; absence of statutory statements under Rule 89 and Circular 125/44/2019, including Statement 3 and Annexure-B; production of a Remittance Advice instead of a Bank Realisation Certificate (e-BRC) or FIRC; and limitation. The petitioner contended that these matters went to the merits of the refund claims and could not properly form the basis of a deficiency memo.

It also stated that the portal did not provide an appropriate category for the refund of CGST claimed and that Circular 125/44/2019 was not applicable to its claim for refund of tax paid under reverse charge mechanism. On the bank certificate issue, the petitioner submitted that the document issued by the bank as an “Advice of Foreign Inward Remittance” contained the information satisfying the requirements of a BRC. The petitioner further argued that limitation was a matter requiring consideration on merits after an opportunity of hearing. The Court examined Rule 90 of the CGST Rules, 2017 and held that the scrutiny contemplated at that stage is confined to completeness of the application with reference to Rule 89(2), (3) and (4).