2025 (11) TMI 1931 - HC - GST

Repeated deficiency memos delaying a refund claim: fresh refiled refund application treated as filed on original date

The dominant issue was whether repeated deficiency memos could justify non-consideration of a refund claim and whether a fresh refund application could be ... Seeking permission to file fresh refund application - Repeated issuance of deficiency memos without considering the refund request of the petitioner - petitioner is ready and willing to file a fresh/new refund application and the same may be construed or treated as having been filed from the date of the first refund application. Revenue submits that if the petitioner files a fresh/new refund application along with supporting documents, the concerned respondents shall consider the refund application in accordance with law without reference to the period of limitation and by treating the fresh/new application as if it was filed on 03.05.2023 which was the date of filing the first refund application. HELD THAT:- It is deemed just and appropriate to dispose of this petition by issuing certain directions to the respondents - The petitioner is reserved liberty to file a fresh/new refund application along with relevant documents within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition disposed off. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED (i) Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file a fresh/new GST refund application and have it construed/treated as filed on the date of the first refund application, with the intervening period excluded for limitation purposes under Section 54 of the CGST Act. (ii) Whether the respondents must issue acknowledgment in FORM GST RFD-02 immediately upon filing of the fresh/new refund application and decide the refund claim (including interest) within a stipulated timeframe in accordance with Section 54 of the CGST Act read with Rule 89 of the CGST Rules. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue (i): Treatment of fresh/new refund application for limitation under Section 54 of the CGST Act Legal framework: The Court expressly anchored the limitation aspect to Section 54 of the CGST Act and directed exclusion of time for limitation computation. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court considered that multiple refund applications had been met with repeated deficiency memos, and both sides agreed that a fresh/new application could be filed and processed. On respondents' instructions, it was accepted that the fresh/new application would be considered without reference to limitation by treating it as filed on the date of the first application. The Court found it just and appropriate to dispose of the petition by issuing directions addressing limitation and procedural progression of the refund process. Conclusions: The petitioner was granted liberty to file a fresh/new refund application within six weeks. The respondents were directed to construe/consider/treat the fresh/new application as if filed on 03.05.2023 (the date of the first refund application) and to exclude the entire period from 03.05.2023 till the date of filing the fresh/new application for limitation purposes under Section 54 of the CGST Act. The Court expressly kept all other rival contentions open, except limitation. Issue (ii): Mandatory acknowledgment (RFD-02) and time-bound adjudication of refund (including interest) Legal framework: The Court directed processing of the refund claim in accordance with Section 54 of the CGST Act read with Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, and specifically mandated issuance of acknowledgment in FORM GST RFD-02. Interpretation and reasoning: Since the petitioner intended to file a fresh/new application with supporting documents, the Court structured the process to ensure formal receipt and expeditious decision-making. The directions were framed to avoid stalling at the threshold and to ensure that the application proceeds through the statutory mechanism, while leaving merits open. Conclusions: The respondents were directed to issue RFD-02 acknowledgment immediately upon filing of the fresh/new refund application and proceed in accordance with law. The concerned respondent was further directed to consider and decide the refund claim together with the claim of interest in accordance with Section 54 read with Rule 89, as expeditiously as possible and within three months from the date of filing the fresh/new refund application.