2023 (11) TMI 960 - HC - GST

Tax Authorities Must Process Input Tax Credit Refund Applications Properly and Provide Clear Deficiency Communication Under Rule 89(2)

AB Enterprises Versus Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax

HC ruled that a refund application for unutilized Input Tax Credit was improperly challenged by tax authorities. The communication citing deficiencies was ... Documents / Evidences to be submitted with the refund application - Validity of communication informing the petitioner regarding deficiencies in its application for refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) - officer issuing the impugned communication is authorized to issue the communication or not - deficiency in the refund application preferred by the petitioner or not - HELD THAT:- It is important to note that the implication of the impugned communication is that the petitioner would be required to file a fresh application for refund in terms of Rule 90(3) of the CGST Rules. Indisputably, the petitioner’s application for refund cannot be termed as deficient if it is in accordance with Rule 89(2) of the CGST Rules and is accompanied with the documents specified therein. Although, the concerned officer is at liberty to call for further documents to process the claim, the fact that such further documents are not annexed with the application does not render the same deficient. Respondent does not controvert that the documents referred to in the file noting and also reflected in the GST portal are not covered under Rule 89(2) of the CGST Rules. Concededly, the petitioner had filed all relevant documents that were mandatory in terms of Rule 89(2) of the CGST Rules. The impugned communication is set aside - the concerned officer is directed to issue the acknowledgement in terms of Rule 90 of the CGST Rules and process the petitioner’s application for refund in accordance with law - petition disposed off. Issues involved:The judgment involves the challenge to a communication regarding deficiencies in a refund application of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.Summary:Issue 1: Authority of the OfficerThe petitioner challenged the communication on the grounds that the officer issuing it was not authorized to do so. However, the petitioner later focused the challenge on the conformity of the communication with the CGST Act and Rules.Issue 2: Deficiencies in Refund ApplicationThe petitioner's refund application for unutilized ITC on zero-rated supplies was deemed deficient by the officer due to missing documents like shipping bills, invoices, and certificates. The petitioner argued that all required documents were submitted as per Rule 89(2) of the CGST Rules.Judgment:The High Court found the communication lacking in specific details of deficiencies. It was noted that the application, accompanied by necessary documents as per Rule 89(2), should not be considered deficient. The Court referred to a previous case to emphasize that an application complete as per the rules cannot be rejected. The officer was directed to acknowledge the application and process it according to the law, while retaining the right to verify the claim and request additional documents if needed.Conclusion:The impugned communication was set aside, and the officer was instructed to process the refund application in compliance with the law. The petitioner was allowed to be further verified for the refund claim.