GST budgetary support claims cannot be denied for pre-UID periods when departmental delay prevented timely registration.

Eligible units under the GST budgetary support scheme cannot be denied reimbursement merely because claims relate to a period before allotment of the unique ID, where the scheme contemplated registration and practical processing through manual or online routes. If the applicant had already sought registration and the delay in issuing the unique ID was attributable to departmental inaction, the authority must not defeat entitlement on a technical ground. The claims must instead be examined on merits and the admissible reimbursement sanctioned in accordance with the scheme.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner's claims for budgetary support under the GST scheme were liable to be rejected solely because the claims related to a period prior to allotment of the unique ID registration; (ii) Whether the authorities were justified in refusing to process the claims when the petitioner had earlier applied for registration and the delay in issuing the unique ID was attributable to the department.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner's claims for budgetary support under the GST scheme were liable to be rejected solely because the claims related to a period prior to allotment of the unique ID registration.

Analysis: The scheme required an eligible unit to obtain one-time registration on the ACES-GST portal and a unique ID for processing claims. The notification and the circular together showed that claims were to be filed after registration, but they also contemplated manual registration and processing to meet practical difficulties. The petitioner was otherwise found eligible under the scheme, and the controversy was not about eligibility but about the timing of the claims vis-a -vis the later allotment of the UID.

Conclusion: The claims could not be rejected merely on the ground that the claim period preceded the UID allotment.

Issue (ii): Whether the authorities were justified in refusing to process the claims when the petitioner had earlier applied for registration and the delay in issuing the unique ID was attributable to the department.

Analysis: The record showed that the petitioner had submitted a manual application for registration, which was not processed by the authorities, and registration with UID was granted only later on an online application. The petitioner then filed the claims promptly. In these circumstances, the department could not rely on its own failure to process registration to defeat the petitioner's entitlement under the scheme. The proper course was to examine the claims on merits and sanction the admissible amount, if otherwise eligible.

Conclusion: The authorities were not justified in rejecting the claims on the technical ground adopted by them, and they were required to process the claims and sanction reimbursement to the extent admissible.

Final Conclusion: The rejection orders were set aside and the claims were directed to be reconsidered and processed in accordance with the scheme.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an eligible unit is prevented from obtaining timely registration and unique ID due to departmental inaction, budgetary support claims under the scheme cannot be denied solely because they relate to an earlier period; the claims must be examined on merits and the authority cannot take advantage of its own wrong.

---