Mandatory refund timelines bar belated deficiency memos, and delay in processing triggers statutory interest on the refund claim.

The refund mechanism under the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act and Rules operates as a complete code. Where the proper officer does not, within the prescribed fifteen days, issue an acknowledgement or communicate deficiencies in FORM GST RFD-03, the refund application is treated as complete and the department loses the right to raise a belated deficiency memo. Delay in processing the refund then attracts the statutory consequence under Section 56, and a hyper-technical objection cannot defeat the claim where supporting documents are already on record and their authenticity is undisputed. The refund was therefore to be processed and released with statutory interest.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refund application was liable to be treated as complete and the department had lost the right to issue a deficiency memo after expiry of the statutory time limit under the refund rules; (ii) whether the petitioner was entitled to refund with interest for delay in processing the application.

Issue (i): Whether the refund application was liable to be treated as complete and the department had lost the right to issue a deficiency memo after expiry of the statutory time limit under the refund rules.

Analysis: The refund mechanism under the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 was held to constitute a complete code. Under Rule 90, the proper officer was required within fifteen days either to issue an acknowledgement in FORM GST RFD-02 or communicate deficiencies in FORM GST RFD-03. Since neither acknowledgement nor deficiency memo was issued within the stipulated period, the application was treated as complete in all respects. Permitting a deficiency memo at that stage would have allowed the department to process the matter beyond the statutory timeline and would have prejudiced the applicant's substantive right to refund.

Conclusion: The department had lost the right to point out any deficiency in the refund application at the belated stage, and the application stood treated as complete.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to refund with interest for delay in processing the application.

Analysis: Once the refund application was not processed within the prescribed period, the statutory consequences under Section 56 became applicable. The Court held that the delay was attributable to the respondent and that the objection based on alleged missing uploads was hyper-technical, particularly when the relevant documents were already before the Court and their authenticity was not in dispute.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to refund along with interest in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, and the respondent was directed to process and release the refund with statutory interest within the time fixed by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the refund rules prescribe a mandatory timeline for acknowledgement or communication of deficiencies, failure to act within that period results in the application being treated as complete and the authority cannot later defeat the refund claim by issuing a belated deficiency memo; delay in refund then attracts statutory interest.

---