Case Law Details
SHCPLRJV Vs ACCT (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Having regard to the fact that there is a default in compliance of Rule 90(1) read with para 2(d) of Circular No. 79, and since the acknowledgment in FORM GST RFD-02 was not issued within 15 days, the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the 1st respondent to deal with the request of the petitioner in all respects, in accordance with law, within a period of two to three weeks from 25.11.2020.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER/JUDGEMENT
The present writ petition came to be filed seeking the following relief/s:
“..to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction
(A) Declaring the action of the 1st respondent in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for the balance amount of Rs.14,00,000/- in its electronic Cash ledger without following the procedure and issuing any deficit memo and opportunity of hearing as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, violative of principles of natural justice and Article 300A of Constitution of India.
(B) Declaring the notice in FORM GST RFD-08 and the order in FORM GST RFD-06 issued by the 1st respondent rejecting the refund after one year without following the procedure contemplated under statute as non-est and void under law apart from without jurisdiction.
(C) Declare that the petitioner is entitled for refund of Rs.14,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum under proviso to Section 56 of the SGST Act and consequently
(D) Direct the 1st respondent to refund the amount of Rs.14,00,000/- along with interest at 9% from 11-09-2019 till date of payment by setting aside the order of the 1st respondent dt.24-06-2020 in FORM GST RFD-06 and
(E) To pass such other order or orders…”
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y.N. Vivekananda, learned Special Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents.
It is to be seen that, under Rule 90(1) read with para 2(d) of Circular No.79, where an application relates to a claim for refund from the electronic cash ledger, an acknowledgment in FORM GST RFD-02 is to be issued within 15 days. Pursuant thereto, if there are any deficiencies in the application, the officer shall communicate the deficiencies to the applicant in FORM GST RFD-03 requiring him to file a fresh refund application, after rectification of such deficiencies. Thus, it is urged that under the scheme of the Statute, there is no provision for passing any order of rejection in relation to an application for refund of the balance amount from the electronic cash ledger. It is further pleaded that once an acknowledgment is issued in respect of the refund application, no deficiency memo can be issued subsequently in respect of the same application.
Though Sri Y.N. Vivekananda, learned Special Standing Counsel, opposed the proposition that there is no provision for passing any order of rejection in relation to an application for refund of the balance amount, however, submits that if all the documents, as required, are furnished, definitely the authorities will consider the same.
Having regard to the fact that there is a default in compliance of Rule 90(1) read with para 2(d) of Circular No. 79, and since the acknowledgment in FORM GST RFD-02 was not issued within 15 days, the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the 1st respondent to deal with the request of the petitioner in all respects, in accordance with law, within a period of two to three weeks from 25.11.2020.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
