Refund cannot be rejected solely due to non-submission of an authenticated document.

?The Order-In-Original (OIO) initially rejected the Petitioner's refund application for Input Tax Credit from Apr’2021 to Mar’2022 citing mismatch of turnover, excess availment, misdeclaration of invoice value, lack of supporting documents (though submitted not appeared due to a technical glitch), absence of granted Personal Hearing (PH), and unauthenticated Annexure -B.

?The petitioner's appeal against the OIO was dismissed, but the High Court's verdict emphasized that the filing of unauthenticated documents was a curable defect and the Petitioner could have been given the opportunity to certify or produce further material to substantiate the document.

?The Court highlighted that if a party is entitled to a refund, the department can request further clarification or documents to satisfy itself.

?It also acknowledged that the relevant period for the application fell within the limitation prescribed under section 54(1) of the CGST Act, 2017.

??As a result, the matter was remitted to the Adjudicating Authority to re-adjudicate the application, considering the relevant documents available with the Petitioner in support of the refund application.

The case is titled M/S Mittal Footcare Vs the Commissioner of CGST And Anr, and the citation is W.P.(C) 15518/2023 & CM. APPLS. 62158/2023, dated 04-01-2024 in the Delhi High Court.