Challenge to GST Refund Rejection Succeeds: Order Set Aside, Respondents Directed to Reconsider Claim with Fresh Perspective Under Rule 96

HC allowed petitioner's challenge to GST refund rejection. The court set aside the original order and directed respondents to reconsider the refund claim by reviewing portal documents and permitting additional document submission. The 1st respondent was given two months to process the refund application, with coordination required regarding the initial risk alert.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to rejection of petitioner's claim for refund under Section 54 of applicable GST enactments.

Analysis:
The petitioner exported goods and claimed a refund of the IGST paid. While refunds for certain months were sanctioned, the refund for a specific month was not processed due to an alert raised by the Director General of Data Analytics & Risk Management (DGRAM). The petitioner reapplied, but the application was rejected. The petitioner argued that the refund process for export of goods is automatic, and all necessary documents are available on the portal, so submitting additional documents should not be required.

The Additional Government Pleader and the senior standing counsel accepted notice for the respondents and suggested reconsideration by taking note of documents already available on the portal and allowing the petitioner to submit additional documents if needed. The impugned order rejected the refund claim solely based on the lack of uploaded supporting documents. The petitioner's counsel emphasized that the refund process relies on documents like shipping bills and invoices available on the portal, making the rejection questionable.

The Court set aside the order and remanded the matter to the 1st respondent for reconsideration. The 2nd and 3rd respondents were directed to co-ordinate with the 1st respondent regarding the risk alert. The 1st respondent was instructed to consider all documents on the portal and allow the petitioner to submit additional documents if necessary. The 1st respondent was given a two-month deadline to process the refund application after receiving a copy of the order. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

---