2025 (3) TMI 106 - HC - GST

Petitioner Granted Three Weeks to Address GST Refund Claim Discrepancies, Authority Ordered to Review Response Within Four Weeks

Pacific Exports And Imports Versus Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax & Anr.

HC granted petitioner three weeks to respond to respondents' GST refund claim discrepancies. The court directed competent authority to examine the ... Rejection of refund claim - mismatch of invoices in GSTR-2A - HELD THAT:- Despite time having been granted on earlier occasions, the petitioner has failed to file a rejoinder affidavit. There are no justification to continue the writ petition on our board and dispose of the same by permitting the writ petitioner to file its response to the stand as taken by the respondents and which stands reflected in Paragraphs 15 and 16 of the counter affidavit as reproduced. The said response may be filed within a period of three weeks from today. Petition disposed off. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED:1. Whether the respondents are obligated to grant a refund of Rs. 10,79,696/- to the petitioner by passing a fresh FORM GST RFD-06Rs.2. Whether the mismatch of invoices in GSTR-2A justifies the denial of the refund claimed by the petitionerRs.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS:Issue 1: Refund of Rs. 10,79,696/-- Relevant legal framework and precedents:The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus or similar direction to compel the respondents to grant the refund. The respondents contested the claim citing discrepancies in the GSTR-2A.- Court's interpretation and reasoning:The Court noted the respondents' argument regarding discrepancies in the GSTR-2A and the petitioner's failure to file a rejoinder affidavit despite previous opportunities.- Key evidence and findings:The respondents provided a detailed breakdown of admitted demand amounts per month, highlighting discrepancies in the petitioner's claims.- Application of law to facts:The Court acknowledged the respondents' position but allowed the petitioner an opportunity to respond to the counter affidavit within three weeks.- Treatment of competing arguments:The Court considered both parties' submissions but emphasized the need for the petitioner to address the discrepancies raised by the respondents.- Conclusions:The Court disposed of the petition, granting the petitioner three weeks to respond to the respondents' contentions. The competent authority was directed to examine the response and issue a reasoned order within four weeks.Issue 2: Mismatch of Invoices in GSTR-2A- Relevant legal framework and precedents:The respondents relied on the CGST Act, 2017, and the importance of GSTR-2A in verifying input invoices for refund claims.- Court's interpretation and reasoning:The Court considered the statutory provisions and the significance of GSTR-2A in validating refund claims based on input tax credit.- Key evidence and findings:The respondents argued that the mismatch of invoices in GSTR-2A justified the denial of refund claims by the petitioner.- Application of law to facts:The Court acknowledged the reliance on GSTR-2A for verifying refund claims and emphasized the need for alignment between claimed invoices and GSTR-2A data.- Treatment of competing arguments:The Court highlighted the importance of addressing discrepancies in GSTR-2A to support refund claims and noted the petitioner's failure to challenge the mismatch during hearings.- Conclusions:The Court kept all rights and contentions open for both parties, pending the petitioner's response to the discrepancies raised by the respondents.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS:- The Court directed the petitioner to respond to the respondents' contentions within three weeks and mandated the competent authority to issue a reasoned order within four weeks thereafter.- The importance of aligning claimed invoices with GSTR-2A data was emphasized in verifying refund claims, highlighting the significance of addressing discrepancies.