Court rectifies officer's error in GST rule application, emphasizes compliance.

The court addressed the petitioner's concerns regarding the proper officer's failure to follow the prescribed procedure under Rule 92 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017. It was noted that the officer directly applied Rule 93 instead, leading to a misapplication of rules. The court acknowledged the procedural lapses and issued a notice returnable on a specified date, allowing direct service. This response indicated the court's seriousness in investigating the recrediting of the amount to the electronic credit ledger under Rule 93, emphasizing the need for compliance with the mandated procedure.

---

---

Issues:

1. Proper officer's failure to follow the procedure as per Rule 92 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017.
2. Application of Rule 89 of the said rules in the present case for refund of input tax credit.
3. Recrediting the amount to the electronic credit ledger under Rule 93.

Issue 1: Proper officer's failure to follow the procedure as per Rule 92:

The petitioner's advocate highlighted the provisions of Rule 92 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017, specifically sub-rule (3), emphasizing the procedure the proper officer is required to follow. It was argued that the proper officer did not adhere to the prescribed procedure under sub-rule (3) of Rule 92. Instead, the officer directly applied Rule 93 and re-credited the amount to the electronic credit ledger. The court was made aware of this deviation, indicating a failure on the part of the proper officer to comply with the mandated procedure.

Issue 2: Application of Rule 89 for refund of input tax credit:

The petitioner's counsel referred to sub-rule (3) of Rule 89 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017, to assert that this provision is applicable only when the application pertains to the refund of input tax credit. However, in the present case, it was argued that the application did not relate to such a refund. Consequently, the contention was raised that the recrediting of the amount to the electronic credit ledger, as done by the proper officer under Rule 93, was not justified based on the nature of the application.

Issue 3: Recrediting the amount under Rule 93:

In light of the submissions made by the petitioner's advocate regarding the procedural lapses and misapplication of rules by the proper officer, the court took cognizance of the matter and issued notice returnable on a specified date. Additionally, direct service was permitted in this case, indicating the seriousness with which the court viewed the concerns raised by the petitioner regarding the recrediting of the amount to the electronic credit ledger under Rule 93. This step signified the court's willingness to delve deeper into the procedural irregularities pointed out during the proceedings.

---