Refusal to Entertain Refund Application of Unutilized ITC: Himachal Pradesh High Court Imposes 10K Cost on Deputy CGST Commissioner
Ranjan Mehta
Helping Businesses and Corporates in GST litigation and Compliance | GST Expert | Lawyer | Chartered Accountant | Indirect Tax Consultant
Case Title: M/s AMN Life Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India & Others
Case No.: CWP?No.7919?of?2022
Facts:
The petitioner, M/s AMN Life Pvt. Ltd., challenged the decision of the Deputy CGST Commissioner for refusing to consider its refund applications of GST for the financial years 2017-2018, 2018-2019, and 2020-2021. The rejection was based on three grounds:
The petitioner failed to file the RFD-01 form.
The petitioner registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, only on October 21, 2020, and was not registered during the relevant period.
Refund applications were submitted manually, while the law mandates that they be filed electronically.
Held:
The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that the reasons provided by the Deputy CGST Commissioner were invalid. Specifically, the court noted that a department-issued circular cannot override the rules framed by competent authorities, particularly Rule 97A of the CGST Rules, which allows manual filing of applications. Rejecting a refund based on the absence of the RFD-01 form or manual filing was deemed improper.
Furthermore, the court emphasized that Section 54 of the CGST Act permits any person to apply for a refund, regardless of their registration status during the relevant period. Consequently, the Deputy CGST Commissioner could not lawfully reject the application on the grounds that the petitioner was not a registered person.
In light of this, the court imposed a Rs. 10,000 cost on the Deputy CGST Commissioner for not entertaining the refund application.
Conclusion:
The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, affirming that procedural oversights such as manual filing or lack of registration during the period in question cannot be grounds for rejecting legitimate refund applications under the CGST Act. The case reinforces that statutory rules must be followed, and taxpayers’ rights to refunds must?be?respected.