Quash orders denying refund of unutilised ITC for zero-rated SEZ supplies; Circular No.125/44/2019 cannot defeat refund rights

The HC allowed the petition, quashing orders denying refund of unutilized ITC for supplies to SEZ units made without payment of tax, and directed respondents to grant the refund where entitlement is admitted. The Court held that procedural prescriptions in Circular No.125/44/2019 cannot defeat substantive refund rights; where strict compliance would cause injustice, the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 may be exercised to prevent unjust enrichment of the Department. The impugned rejection of the appeal was set aside.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court were:

• Whether the Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST dated 18.11.2019, which restricts the refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) for supplies made to Special Economic Zone (SEZ) units without payment of tax, can override the statutory provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act.
• Whether the denial of the refund application by the respondents based on the procedural limitation imposed by the circular, despite the substantive entitlement of the petitioner, is valid.
• Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the unutilized ITC that was omitted due to an inadvertent error in the initial refund application.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Relevant legal framework and precedents:

The legal framework revolves around the CGST Act, which provides for the refund of unutilized ITC. The Board Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST dated 18.11.2019 is central to the dispute, as it limits the ability to claim a refund for supplies made to SEZ units without payment of tax to a single application.

Court's interpretation and reasoning:

The Court emphasized that a circular cannot override statutory provisions. It noted that the substantive right to a refund, as provided under the CGST Act, should not be negated by procedural limitations imposed by a circular. The Court relied on previous judgments, such as Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd. and Pee Gee Fabrics Private Limited, which established that technical errors or procedural lapses should not deny substantive rights when the conditions for entitlement are otherwise satisfied.

Key evidence and findings:

The petitioner had made an inadvertent error by omitting five purchase bills in the initial refund application, leading to an incorrect claim of ITC. The respondents did not dispute the petitioner's entitlement to the quantum of refund claimed in the second application but rejected it based on the procedural limitation of the circular.

Application of law to facts:

The Court applied the principle that substantive rights should not be extinguished by procedural technicalities. It found that the petitioner's substantive right to a refund was established, and the procedural limitation of the circular should not prevent the refund.

Treatment of competing arguments:

The respondents argued that the petitioner should have been more careful in the initial application and that the circular's procedural limitation was correctly applied. The Court, however, prioritized the substantive right over procedural adherence, noting that denying the refund would result in unjust enrichment of the Department.

Conclusions:

The Court concluded that the petitioner's substantive right to a refund should be honored, and the procedural limitation imposed by the circular should not bar the refund.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning:

"Keeping in view the aforesaid decisions, it is settled law that the benefit which otherwise a person is entitled to once the substantive conditions are satisfied cannot be denied due to a technical error or lacunae in the electronic system."

Core principles established:

• A circular cannot override statutory provisions, and procedural limitations should not negate substantive rights.
• Technical errors or procedural lapses should not deny substantive rights when entitlement conditions are satisfied.
• The Court has the jurisdiction to ensure that substantive rights are not extinguished by procedural technicalities.

Final determinations on each issue:

• The Court quashed the orders rejecting the petitioner's refund application and directed the respondents to process the refund application afresh, acknowledging the petitioner's substantive right to the refund.
• The Court emphasized the importance of balancing procedural adherence with the protection of substantive rights to prevent unjust enrichment by the Department.

---