GST export refund denial citing Rule 96(10) breach after rule's omission; rejection orders set aside, matter remanded for fresh decision.

Whether refund denial based on alleged breach of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules could be sustained after the omission of Rule 96(10) was held, in a later HC decision, to be without any saving for pending proceedings. The HC held that the adjudicating and appellate authorities lacked the benefit of that binding clarification, which could materially affect the legality of the refund rejection and related proceedings; therefore, without expressing any view on merits, it set aside the impugned orders and remanded the refund application and show cause notice for fresh adjudication after examining the impact of the later HC ruling, directing expeditious disposal within six months.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether the Court should entertain the petitions despite availability of an alternate statutory remedy, given that the GST Tribunal was not operational in the circumstances.

(ii) Whether the impugned orders rejecting the refund claim and upholding such rejection should be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication because the authorities had not considered the impact of a subsequent binding decision holding that omission of Rule 96(10) was without any saving for pending proceedings, and because related questions (including Rule 86(4B) retrospectivity and other objections) required reconsideration.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (i): Entertaining the petitions notwithstanding alternate remedy

Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court considered the objection that an alternate remedy lay before the GST Tribunal.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that, as of the date of decision, the GST Tribunal was not operational. In these "peculiar facts" and considering the nature of the order proposed (setting aside and remanding), relegating the petitioner to the alternate remedy would serve no useful purpose.

Conclusion: The Court proceeded to entertain the petitions and did not dismiss them on the ground of alternate remedy.

Issue (ii): Setting aside the impugned orders and remand for fresh decision in light of subsequent decision concerning Rule 96(10) and to reconsider connected contentions

Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The dispute involved allegations that the petitioner had breached Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017, and the impugned orders also addressed Rule 86(4B), holding that it could not be given retrospective effect. The Court also noted a subsequent decision of the same Court holding that Rule 96(10) was omitted without any saving provision for pending proceedings.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the petitioner had been called upon to return refunded amounts inter alia on the basis of an alleged breach of Rule 96(10), and that Rule 86(4B) issues were also involved. Since the adjudicating and appellate authorities did not have the benefit of the later decision regarding the omission of Rule 96(10), that decision would have "some impact on the issues raised." At the present stage, the Court declined to make observations on the merits or on the precise effect of that later decision, but held that the interests of justice required that the impugned orders be set aside and the matter remanded so the refund application and show cause notice could be decided afresh after examining that impact. The Court further directed that the authority must hear parties, consider written submissions, and also consider all other contentions, including objections regarding retrospectivity and the bar (if any) on filing two refund claims.

Conclusions: The Court quashed and set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh the refund application and show cause notice, after considering the impact of the later decision and all other contentions. The authority was directed to complete the exercise expeditiously and in any event within six months from uploading of the order, after granting hearing and considering written submissions.

---