2021 (10) TMI 838 - HC - GST

Court Orders Timely Tax Refund, Stresses Taxpayer Confidence

Dantara Jewellers Versus The State Of Kerala Represented By Secretary, Taxes Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram, The Assistant State Tax Officer, The Assistant Commissioner Thrissur, The Joint Commissioner (Appeals) Thrissur

The court set aside the order refusing the refund of taxes under CGST and SGST, emphasizing the importance of maintaining taxpayer confidence in the tax ... Refund of taxes paid under Central Goods and Services Tax as well as State Goods and Services Tax - evidence to prove the payment of tax by the petitioner, present or not - HELD THAT:- The conduct of respondents is not appreciable, still taking into consideration the transition phase of the new statute and the temporary glitches that are occurring as well as the fair submission made by the learned Government Pleader that, the amount shall be refunded, the respondents 2 and 3 are directed to refund the amount of ₹ 12,26,064/-, due to the petitioner as refund, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petition allowed. Issues involved:Challenge to order refusing refund of taxes under CGST and SGST, validity of Ext.P9 order, challenge to final orders under section 129(3) of SGST Act, entitlement for refund, rejection of refund claim due to absence of evidence of tax payment, glitches in refund process due to transition phase of CGST Act.Analysis:The petitioner challenged Ext.P9 order issued by the 3rd respondent, which refused the refund of taxes paid under Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) and State Goods and Services Tax (SGST) citing lack of evidence of payment. The petitioner had earlier remitted an amount under section 129(3) of the SGST Act and subsequently challenged the orders before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority found the petitioner not liable for tax payment and quashed the orders issued by the 2nd respondent, leading to the petitioner becoming entitled to a refund. However, the 3rd respondent issued a show-cause notice questioning the refund claim due to the absence of details of tax remittance. The court heard arguments from both parties, with the Government Pleader conceding that the petitioner was entitled to the refund but citing glitches in the process due to the transition phase of the CGST Act.The court acknowledged the glitches in the refund process but directed the respondents to refund the amount due to the petitioner within 30 days, emphasizing that technical issues should not impede the refund process. The court highlighted the importance of maintaining the confidence of taxpayers in the tax deposit scheme under section 129 of the SGST Act. In light of the submissions made and the need to uphold the integrity of the tax refund system, the court set aside Ext.P9 order and allowed the writ petition in favor of the petitioner. The judgment aimed to ensure the timely refund of the amount to the petitioner despite the challenges posed by the transition phase of the CGST Act.