GST Refund Dispute: IRCTC Ordered to Submit Non-Input Credit Affidavit Under Section 54(14)(2)(d)

HC ruled on GST refund case involving IRCTC, interpreting Section 54(14)(2)(d) of CGST Act. Court directed petitioner to file an affidavit confirming non-availment of input credit with supporting documents. IRCTC was instructed to seek refund direction from GST Authorities. Case adjourned for final orders upon affidavit submission.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment include refund of GST amount, interpretation of Section 54(14)(2)(d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the requirement for the petitioner to file an affidavit indicating non-availment of input credit of GST.

Refund of GST amount:
The Court noted that efforts at reconciliation resulted in an instruction from the IRCTC Authorities regarding the refund of GST amount, specifying that the IRCTC must obtain an affidavit from the licensee confirming non-availment of input credit of GST, along with supporting documents. The IRCTC sought a refund direction from the GST Authorities in case the Court orders a refund to the petitioner.

Interpretation of Section 54(14)(2)(d) of CGST Act, 2017:
The Court examined Section 54(14)(2)(d) of the CGST Act, 2017, which states that when tax becomes refundable due to a judgment, decree, or order of the Court, the date of communication of such judgment is relevant for the refund of GST. The Court found no impediment in passing an order for refund, and agreed with the IRCTC's request for a complementary refund direction from the GST Authorities.

Requirement for petitioner to file affidavit:
The Court directed the petitioner to file an affidavit confirming the non-availment of input credit of GST, along with a complete working supported by relevant documents, by a specified date. The petitioner agreed to comply with this requirement, and upon filing the affidavit, final orders will be passed in the writ petition at the next hearing date.

Separate Judgement (if applicable):
No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.

---