TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 561
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubstantive reliefs : "28. The petitioners, therefore, pray: a. that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set aside the impugned orders and allow the refund of Rs. 17,55,13,818/. b. that this Hon'ble High Court issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to respondent No.3 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant the refund of Rs. 17,55,13,818/-. c. In the alternative, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the petitioners to take themselves the recredit of Rs. 17,55,13,818/on the basis of Form GST RFDPMT 03 issued by the Respondent No.3 in their Electronic Credit Ledger at the time of filing of Monthly Summary Return - GSTR 3B or direct the Respondent No.3 to gran....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the CG&ST Rules") and the relevant notifications and circulars clarifying the process of manual filing of refund claims in Form GST RFD01A, the refund claims were manually filed in FormRFD01A. Upon submission of such claim, refund ARN receipt was also generated. It is the case of the petitioner that since online refund procedure was still facing teething problems, formal refund claim, as instructed, was also filed manually wherein the petitioner submitted the copies of RFD01A, ARN receipt, copy of Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) and GSTR3B filed for the relevant period. The total refund claim of the petitioner was Rs. 17,55,13,818/. 6. Rule 90(3) of the CG&ST ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inety percent of the refund so claimed, should be granted on provisional basis within a week. It is the case of the petitioner that in any case under section 54(7) of the CG&ST Act, the proper officer has to issue the order under section 54(5) within sixty days from the date of receipt of the application complete in all respects. 9. The petitioner was awaiting the refund order from the third respondent; however, till 1.3.2018, neither was any refund order passed nor was any further deficiency memo issued by the third respondent. The petitioner was therefore, constrained to inquire about the status of the refund claim. Vide letter dated 1.3.2018 addressed to the third respondent, the petitioner inter alia stated that since the amount of r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nse from the third respondent, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking reliefs noted hereinabove. 10. At the outset Mr. Anand Nainawati, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not pressing the reliefs prayed for vide paragraph No.28 (a) and (b) of the petition and has confined the present petition to the relief claimed vide paragraph No.28(c). 10.1 It was submitted that the petitioner is only pressing the alternative relief of recrediting the amount of Rs. 17,55,13,818/on the basis of Form GST RFDPMT 03 issued by the third respondent in their Electronic Credit Ledger at the time of filing of monthly summary return - GSTR 3B or for a direction to the third respondent to grant such recredit im....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Desai, learned senior standing counsel for the respondents, submitted that resort can be made to the provisions of rule 93 of the CG&ST Rules provided that in terms of the Explanation thereto, either the appeal is finally rejected or if the claimant gives an undertaking in writing to the proper officer that he shall not file an appeal. It was submitted that in this case the petitioner has not submitted such undertaking with regard to nonfiling of the appeal against the rejection order, and hence, in the absence of the requirements of rule 93 being fulfilled, the question of recrediting the amount does not arise. 12. In the rejoinder, Mr. Nainawati invited the attention of the court to the status report of the complaint made by the peti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ected or if the claimant gives an undertaking in writing to the proper officer that he shall not file an appeal. 15. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the petitioner has not filed any appeal, and hence, the question of the appeal being rejected does not arise. Insofar as giving an undertaking in writing to the proper officer that the petitioner shall not file an appeal is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated before this court that the petitioner shall not file an appeal against the order rejecting its refund. Moreover, with a view to comply with the requirements of the Explanation to rule 93 of the CG&ST Rules, it would also file an undertaking as required. 16. However, as is apparent from th....