Case Law Details
GHS Traders Vs Union of India (Karnataka High Court)
The Karnataka High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a taxpayer challenging four deficiency memos issued in Form GST RFD-03 in relation to refund applications submitted under the GST law. The petitioner sought quashing of the deficiency memos and requested directions to the authorities to issue an acknowledgment in Form GST RFD-02 and process the refund claim in accordance with law.
The petitioner submitted that despite filing multiple refund applications on 08.10.2024, 29.10.2024, 18.11.2024, and 05.12.2024, the authorities repeatedly issued deficiency memos without considering the refund claim on merits. The petitioner expressed willingness to submit a fresh refund application along with supporting documents and requested that such application be treated as having been filed on the date of the first refund application, namely 08.10.2024. The petitioner also sought consideration of its claim for interest along with the refund application.
On instructions, the respondents submitted that if a fresh refund application was filed together with supporting documents, the authorities would consider the claim in accordance with law. The respondents also agreed that the fresh application could be treated as having been filed on 08.10.2024, the date of the original refund application, without reference to limitation.
Taking note of the submissions of both sides, the High Court considered it appropriate to dispose of the petition by issuing specific directions. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh refund application with relevant documents within six weeks from receipt of the order.
The Court further directed that once the fresh refund application is filed, the authorities shall construe and treat it as if it had been filed on 08.10.2024, being the date of the first refund application. The entire period from 08.10.2024 until the filing of the fresh refund application was directed to be excluded for the purpose of limitation under Section 54 of the CGST Act.
The Court also reserved liberty to the petitioner to submit additional pleadings, documents, and material in support of the refund claim. Upon filing of the fresh application, the authorities were directed to examine the refund claim, including the petitioner’s claim for interest, in accordance with Section 54 of the CGST Act and Rule 89 of the CGST Rules.
The Court directed the concerned authority to issue an acknowledgment in Form GST RFD-02 immediately upon receipt of the fresh refund application and thereafter proceed in accordance with law. The refund application was directed to be decided as expeditiously as possible and preferably within three months from the date of filing of the fresh application.
While granting the above relief, the Court clarified that all rival contentions and all issues other than limitation were left open for consideration by the authorities. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the refund claim. The petitioner was also granted liberty to pursue any other remedies available under law, including approaching the Court again if necessary.
The effect of the order is that the fresh refund application filed by the petitioner will inherit the filing date of the original refund application for limitation purposes, and the period during which deficiency memos were repeatedly issued will not prejudice the petitioner’s refund claim.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-
“a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari, or such other Writ, Order or direction in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari, quashing the impugned 4 (Four) deficiency notes in FORM GST RFD-03 bearing Reference No:AA2910240182699 dated 23.10.2024 (ARN)AA291024079887M dated 13.11.2024 (ARN)AA291124045052N dated 03.12.2024 and ZD290125025844C dated 08.01.2025, issued by Respondent No.04 under Rule 90(3) of Central Goods and Services Rules, 2017 (Annexure-B1, Annexure-B2, Annexure-B3 and Annexure-B4 respectively);
b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or such other Writ, Order or direction in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, to Respondent No.04, to issue acknowledgment in FORM GST RFD-02 in accordance with law against the fresh Refund application on the directions from this Hon’ble court to be submitted by Petitioner in FORM GST RFD-01; and
c) Pass such other or further orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interests of justice and equity, including the costs of this writ petition.
For which act of kindness, the Petitioner shall as in duty bound, ever pray.”
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned CGC for respondent No.1, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5 and learned AGA for respondent No.6 and perused the material on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite repeated refund applications at Annexure- A1 dated 08.10.2024, A2 dated 29.10.2024, A3 dated 18.11.2024 and A4 dated 05.12.2024, the respondents have repeatedly issued deficiency memos without considering the refund request of the petitioner, who is before this Court by way of the present petition.
4. It is submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to file a fresh/new refund application and the same may be construed or treated as having been filed from the date of the first refund application dated 08.10.2024 and the fresh/new refund application to be filed by the petitioner may be directed to be considered as if the same was filed on 08.10.2024 on which date the petitioner filed the first refund application and to dispose of and pass appropriate orders on the fresh/new refund application to be filed by the petitioner including the claim for interest put forth by the petitioner.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents on instructions submits that if the petitioner files a fresh/new refund application along with supporting documents, the concerned respondents shall consider the refund application in accordance with law without reference to the period of limitation and by treating the fresh/new application as if it was filed on 08.10.2024 which was the date of filing the first refund application and take appropriate decision and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition by issuing certain directions to the respondents.
7. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is hereby disposed of.
ii) The petitioner is reserved liberty to file a fresh/new refund application along with relevant documents within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
iii) It is further directed that pursuant to the petitioner filing fresh/new refund application along with relevant documents before the concerned respondent, the concerned respondents shall construe/consider/treat the fresh/new refund application to be filed by the petitioner as if the same was filed on 08.10.2024 on which date the first refund application was filed by the petitioner and by excluding the entire period from 08.10.2024 till the date of filing the fresh/new refund application for the purpose of limitation under Section 54 of the CGST Act.
iv) Along with fresh/new refund application, the liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file pleadings/documents etc., in support of his claim.
v) Pursuant to the petitioner filing the fresh/new refund application, the concerned respondent shall consider the refund claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders together with the claim of interest put forth by the petitioner in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 54 of the CGST Act read with Rule 89 of the CGST Rules as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months from the date of petitioner filing fresh/new refund application.
vi) Immediately upon the petitioner filing a fresh/new refund application as stated supra, the concerned respondent shall issue an acknowledgment in RFD-02 to the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law.
vii) All rival contentions and all aspects of the matter except limitation are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.
viii) Liberty is also reserved in favour of the petitioner to take recourse to such other remedies as available in law including approaching this Court, subsequently, if the occasion, so arises.
Author Bio
