2022 (5) TMI 454 - HC - GST

GST Refund Claim Reinstated After Authorities Failed to Send Deficiency Memo Within 15-Day Period Under Rule 90(2)

M/s Vodafone Mobile Services Limited (Now, Known As Vodafone Idea Limited) Versus The Union of India, State of Madhya Pradesh, The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise, The Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise

The HC quashed the order rejecting petitioner's GST tax refund claim. Authorities had failed to communicate the deficiency memo within the statutory ... Seeking refund of excess tax paid - deficiency were not pointed out within the statutory period of 15 days - non-communication of deficiency memo to the present petitioner - HELD THAT:- The rival parties are at consensus that if the petitioner makes a fresh application for refund of excess tax paid by the present petitioner, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law afresh. Hence, in view of the consensus arrived at between the parties, the order impugned dated 22.11.2019 contained in Annexure P/1 is quashed. The petitioner is granted liberty to move an application afresh for refund of excess tax within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order - Petition disposed off. Issues:1. Refusal of refund of excess tax by respondent Nos. 4 and 5.2. Alleged failure to communicate deficiency memo to the petitioner within the statutory period.3. Lack of opportunity to rectify the defect in the application for refund.4. Quashing of the impugned order and granting liberty to file a fresh application for refund.Analysis:Issue 1: Refusal of refund of excess taxThe petitioner challenged the order rejecting the claim for refund of tax, contending that despite being registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and regularly filing returns, the burden of tax was borne by them. The petitioner sought a refund of excess tax paid in Madhya Pradesh, which was denied due to an alleged deficiency in the application.Issue 2: Alleged failure to communicate deficiency memoThe petitioner argued that the deficiency memo, which was crucial for rectifying any deficiencies in the refund application, was not served within the stipulated period of 15 days as required by Rule 90(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. Furthermore, the petitioner claimed that the deficiency memo itself was not communicated to them, raising procedural irregularities.Issue 3: Lack of opportunity to rectify the defectThe petitioner contended that the impugned order was legally flawed as it did not provide an opportunity to rectify the identified deficiency in the application for refund. The petitioner emphasized the importance of complying with statutory provisions and ensuring that any deficiencies are promptly communicated to the applicant for rectification.Issue 4: Quashing of the impugned order and liberty to file a fresh applicationFollowing a hearing where both parties agreed that a fresh application for refund could be submitted, the Court quashed the impugned order dated 22.11.2019 and granted the petitioner the liberty to file a new application within 30 days. The Court emphasized that any deficiencies in the fresh application should be communicated to the petitioner for rectification, ensuring compliance with legal procedures.In conclusion, the Court disposed of the writ petition without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, highlighting the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to statutory requirements in matters concerning the refund of excess tax payments.