TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Refund claim dispute under Rule 97A resolved after payment during proceedings makes petition infructuous</h1> The HC dismissed a writ petition as infructuous regarding a refund claim dispute under Rule 97A of CGST Rules, 2017, where taxpayer faced issues due to ... Refund claim - non-availability of proper / correct bank account details of the taxpayers - Rule 97A of the CGST Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT:- While it is observed that such a dispute should never have arisen before this Court and the respondent-authorities ought to have addressed the grievance efficiently, in real time as may not require present petition to be filed by the petitioner, needlessly, at the same time in view of further fact that at present the refund has been paid out, the cause of action brought by the petitioner does not survive. The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. Issues Involved:1. Technical glitch on the GST portal affecting refund applications.2. Manual processing of refund applications u/s Rule 97A of the CGST Rules, 2017.3. Delay in resolution of the technical glitch and accountability of the authorities.Summary:Issue 1: Technical glitch on the GST portal affecting refund applicationsThe petitioner sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to resolve a technical glitch on the GST portal, which hindered the processing of three refund applications for July, August, and September 2017. Alternatively, the petitioner requested that the applications be processed manually as per Rule 97A of the CGST Rules, 2017.Issue 2: Manual processing of refund applications u/s Rule 97A of the CGST Rules, 2017The court acknowledged the technical glitch and directed the respondents to confirm the filing of the refund applications. Despite initial delays, the respondents later confirmed that the technical issue had been resolved, and the Application Reference Numbers (ARNs) were now visible, allowing for the processing of the refund applications.Issue 3: Delay in resolution of the technical glitch and accountability of the authoritiesThe court expressed concern over the prolonged delay in resolving the issue, noting that it took more than three years and multiple court orders to address the petitioner's grievance. The court directed the GSTN and CBIC authorities to file affidavits detailing the reasons for the delay and the steps taken to resolve the issue. The affidavits revealed that the refund applications were initially processed manually and were not visible on the GST system due to administrative transitions and technical issues.Final Judgment:The court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous since the refund had been paid out. However, it observed that such disputes should not require court intervention and urged the respondents to address grievances efficiently in the future.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
