GSTN Portal Must Accept Refund Applications for Compensation Cess

The court granted the writ petition, directing the respondents to either open the GSTN Portal or manually accept the refund applications for unutilized Input Tax Credit of compensation cess for the periods 2017-18 and 2018-19. The court emphasized that procedural requirements for claiming the refund were not relaxed, except due to the non-communication of resolution comments. Authorities were instructed to process the refund applications in compliance with the law.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a mandamus directing the respondents to open the GSTN Portal or manually accept the refund application for unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) pertaining to compensation cess for the periods 2017-18 and 2018-19.
2. Whether the petitioner followed the proper procedure for filing the refund application.
3. Whether the respondents communicated the resolution comments to the petitioner.
4. The validity of the rejection order issued by the respondents.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Mandamus for Opening GSTN Portal or Manual Acceptance:
The petitioner sought a mandamus to either open the GSTN Portal to file its refund application for unutilized ITC of compensation cess or to manually accept the refund application for the periods 2017-18 and 2018-19. The court found that the petitioner faced technical glitches while attempting to file the application online and had made several representations and complaints to the authorities without resolution. The court directed the respondents to either open the GSTN Portal or manually accept the refund application within one month from the date of communication of the judgment.

2. Procedure for Filing Refund Application:
The respondents argued that the petitioner did not follow the proper procedure for filing the refund application, as the necessary fields in the application form were not completed. The court noted that the respondents claimed to have issued resolution comments to address the technical issues faced by the petitioner, but these comments were not communicated to the petitioner. The court held that the petitioner could not be penalized for this non-communication and should be given an opportunity to comply with the directions in the resolution comments.

3. Communication of Resolution Comments:
The petitioner contended that it did not receive any communication or resolution comments from the respondents regarding the technical issues faced while filing the refund application. The court observed that the resolution comments mentioned in the respondents' counter-affidavit were not communicated to the petitioner. The court held that the petitioner should not suffer due to the respondents' failure to communicate the resolution comments and directed the respondents to inform the petitioner whether they would open the GSTN Portal or accept the refund applications manually.

4. Validity of the Rejection Order:
The respondents argued that the petitioner's refund application was already rejected and the petitioner did not challenge the rejection order. The court clarified that the rejection order pertained to the refund of excess IGST for the financial year 2018-19 and was not related to the refund of compensation cess, which was the subject matter of the present case. The court did not address the petitioner's entitlement to the refund of compensation cess, leaving it to the authorities to decide in accordance with the law.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to either open the GSTN Portal or manually accept the refund applications for the periods 2017-18 and 2018-19. The court emphasized that it had not relaxed any procedural requirements for claiming the refund, except to the extent necessary due to the non-communication of the resolution comments. The authorities were instructed to process the refund applications in accordance with the law.

---