Section 54 permits refunds only for excess tax; reconsider refund under Circular No.26/26/2017-GST after hearing within six weeks

HC held that Section 54 permits refund only for excess tax paid; the petitioner had not paid excess but only the due compensation cess, so the original refund claim was not maintainable. The HC set aside respondent No.2's order dated 26.10.2020 and directed respondent No.2 to reconsider the petitioner's request for refund solely under Circular No. 26/26/2017-GST (issued under s.168) after affording a hearing, completing that exercise within six weeks. The court noted the circular binds authorities and any refund must satisfy its conditions.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether rectification of FORM GSTR-3B and setting aside of Circular No.26/26/2017-GST (dated 29.12.2017) is permissible in light of higher judicial precedent upholding that Circular.

2. Whether an application for refund under Section 54 of the CGST Act is maintainable where there was no excess payment of tax but an input tax credit (arising from compensation cess paid on import) remained unutilized due to earlier cash payment of an otherwise eligible liability.

3. Whether Circular No.26/26/2017-GST (para 4) permits refund where adjustment in FORM GSTR-3B is not feasible, and if so, whether the tax authorities are obliged to consider refund claims under that Circular after providing opportunity of hearing.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Rectification of FORM GSTR-3B and validity of Circular No.26/26/2017-GST

Legal framework: Administrative instructions issued under section 168 of the CGST Act (Circular No.26/26/2017-GST) govern filing and adjustments in FORM GSTR-3B and bind authorities under the Act.

Precedent Treatment: The Circular had been set aside by a High Court but subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court in appeals arising from those judgments.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court recognized that the Supreme Court's decision validating the Circular forecloses attack on the Circular and precludes relief in respect of rectification of FORM GSTR-3B or setting aside the Circular. A concession was made by petitioner's counsel accepting that the Supreme Court precedent (summarised as precluding relief on rectification/setting aside) governs the present controversy on that point.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where a binding appellate precedent upholds a Circular issued under section 168, subordinate courts must apply that precedent and cannot set aside or grant rectification contrary to it. Obiter - none additional on this specific point.

Conclusion: Relief in the form of rectification of FORM GSTR-3B or setting aside/modifying Circular No.26/26/2017-GST is not permissible; the rejection of rectification insofar as it sought such relief is upheld as barred by higher judicial pronouncement.

Issue 2 - Maintainability of refund under Section 54 where no excess payment but unutilized input tax credit exists

Legal framework: Section 54(1) of the CGST Act permits refund of "any tax" paid in excess of liability, within prescribed time and manner. The proviso also contemplates refund of balances in the electronic cash ledger as per section 49(6).

Precedent Treatment: The Court referred to controlling authority (noted at para 13) that limits rectification claims; however, no precedent was cited to broaden Section 54 beyond its language of "excess payment".

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court analysed Section 54(1) and concluded that it provides for refund where there has been an excess payment of tax (i.e., tax paid over and above liability). In the facts, the compensation cess was paid to meet a liability and therefore not an excess payment. The petitioner's cash payment cleared tax that was due, and the subsequent non-utilisation of input tax credit was an inadvertent mistake; nevertheless, Section 54 does not apply where there is no excess payment.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Section 54 is confined to refund of excess tax actually paid; a refund cannot be claimed merely because an input tax credit remained unutilized where initial payments corresponded to due liabilities. Obiter - characterization of taxpayer's mistake as "inadvertence" does not convert a paid liability into an excess payment for the purpose of Section 54.

Conclusion: An application under Section 54 could not be maintained on the ground of excess payment in the absence of any payment made over and above the liability; the authority was correct to reject refund claims founded on Section 54 where no excess payment was established.

Issue 3 - Scope and application of Circular No.26/26/2017-GST (para 4) regarding refund where adjustment in FORM GSTR-3B is not feasible; duty to consider refund with hearing

Legal framework: Circular No.26/26/2017-GST para 4 clarifies that FORM GSTR-3B lacks provision for reporting differential figures for past months; adjustments should be reported on a net basis in the appropriate tables and negative entries are not permitted. Any amount remaining for adjustment may be adjusted in subsequent GSTR-3B returns and "in cases where such adjustment is not feasible, refund may be claimed."

Precedent Treatment: The Circular is binding on authorities (issued under section 168), and the Supreme Court has upheld its validity; the High Court therefore cannot disregard the Circular, but may interpret its application to fact situations.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted the narrow proposition that, although rectification and setting aside of the Circular are precluded, the Circular itself contemplates a refund remedy where adjustment is not feasible. Consequently, the petitioner's claim based upon difficulty of adjustment under para 4 engages the authority's duty to examine whether the conditions for refund under the Circular are satisfied. The Court held that rejection of the refund claims without considering them strictly in terms of the Circular (and without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing on that specific ground) required reconsideration.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where a binding statutory Circular expressly provides for refund when adjustment in FORM GSTR-3B is not feasible, authorities must examine refund claims under the terms of that Circular and afford the taxpayer an opportunity of hearing before rejecting such claims. Obiter - the Court's direction to re-examine the claim within a fixed period is procedural and contextual to the case facts.

Conclusion: The order rejecting refund claims is set aside only to the limited extent that the tax authority must reconsider the petitioner's refund request strictly in terms of Circular No.26/26/2017-GST para 4, after affording an opportunity of hearing; the reconsideration is to be completed within six weeks. No broader relief (rectification or setting aside of the Circular) is granted.

Cross-references and Practical Outcomes

1. Issue 1 limits the petitioner's relief - Supreme Court precedent validating Circular prevents attack on its validity or seeking rectification inconsistent with that precedent.

2. Issue 2 establishes that Section 54 cannot be used to claim refund where payments were not in excess of liability; this is distinct from relief under the Circular contemplated in Issue 3.

3. Issue 3 preserves a distinct statutory-administrative route: where adjustment in FORM GSTR-3B is not feasible, the Circular itself contemplates refund and requires authorities to consider such claims with procedural fairness; the Court ordered limited remand consistent with that obligation.

---