TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 588
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d finally. 2. The petitioner, having GSTIN 08AACM1217A1Z9, filed refund application in Form RFD-01 amounting to Rs. 14,34,804/- vide ARN No. AA0812200031153 under the category "supply made to SEZ unit/Developer with payment of Tax" for the period July, 2020 in terms of the provisions of Section 54, sub-section (3)(ii) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CGST Act of 2017') read with Rule 89, sub-rule (5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CGST Rules of 2017'). On the basis of the aforesaid application, the proper officer, i.e., the Adjudicating Authority sanctioned refund of an amount of Rs. 14,30,110/- vide refund sanction order No. Z081200148802....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....undertakings which were uploaded as attachments with Form GST RFD-01 submitted electronically through common portal, but the taxpayer/writ petitioner, due to oversight failed to physically sign those declarations and undertakings before scanning and attaching with Form GST RFD-01. Thus, principally on the ground that the declarations filed by the petitioner were not signed by the proper person and also uploaded in PDF files as un-signed scanned copy, no verification was required and, therefore, refund order was not proper. 6. As there is no Tribunal in existence where the petitioner could avail the remedy of second appeal, the petitioner is before this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is an undisputed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd that the respondent in their cross reply admitted that, scanned copies of few more Declarations and Undertakings were uploaded as attachments with FORM GST RFD-01 submitted electronically through the common portal, but by oversight these Declarations and Undertakings were not physically signed before scanning and attaching with FORM GST RFD-01......" In the next para, i.e. Para 11 of the impugned order, the Appellate Authority recorded as below: "11. I also find that the Respondent in their cross reply submitted that no deficiency memo was issued by the proper officer in FORM GST RFD-03 for any deficiency found in the refund application filed by the Respondent. Therefore, it is not permissible for the Department to file an ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../2019 dated 18.11.2019 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. There is no dispute raised by the respondents to the aforesaid averments. As far as digital signatures on the declarations are concerned, that is also not in dispute as it would be clear from the abstract of the impugned order which has been quoted hereinabove. The only reason assigned by the Appellate Authority to declare the sanction for refund as illegal is that declarations were not signed in physical mode before it could be scanned and uploaded through electronic mode. For this purpose, as is apparent from the impugned order, the Appellate Authority has relied upon Circular dated 18.11.2019 (Annexure-10). 11. The legal requirement with regard to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecial Economic Zone developer;]" A reading of the aforesaid provisions of Rule 89 of the CGST Rules of 2017 would show that there is no specific requirement that the declaration must necessarily be signed in physical mode. 12. Method of authentication is covered by the provisions contained in Rule 26 of the CGST Rules of 2017, relevant part of which reads as below: "26. Method of authentication (1) All applications, including reply, if any, to the notices, returns including the details of outward and inward supplies, appeals or any other document required to be submitted under the provisions of these rules shall be so submitted electronically with digital signature certificate or through e-signature as specified unde....