TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 94
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gust, 2017 to January, 2018. The Petitioner was under the mistaken impression that only Input Tax Credit (hereinafter 'ITC') could be distributed through the ISD account and the cash deposit was not permissible for distribution. In view thereof, owing to the inadvertent deposit, the Petitioner filed a refund application on 12th April, 2018 seeking refund of the said amount. The Respondent-Delhi GST Department (hereinafter 'the Department') debited the amount from ECL and the same was to be credited into the Petitioner's bank account. However, unfortunately the anticipated credit did not take place. 4. A deficiency memo was issued to the Petitioner on 3rd March, 2020. In order to rectify the deficiency, and upon the Department clarifying the Petitioner's earlier misunderstanding, the Petitioner submitted a withdrawal application seeking to withdraw the original refund application, under the bona fide belief that the refund amount would thereafter be credited. However, as the amount continued to remain uncredited, the Petitioner addressed repeated representations to the Authorities, but to no avail. Despite repeated follow ups, the amount was not credited, hence this writ petition. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... but instead of filing the same, the Petitioner withdrew the application. The Petitioner has also failed to file the application physically before the jurisdictional authority as per the Act, 2017. 7. The Respondents have not withheld the tax amount of the Petitioner, but it is the Petitioner itself who chose to withdraw their Refund application and did not clear the deficiencies in the application as stated by the authorities in their Deficiency Memo. 8. The Respondents hereby state that they are ready and willing to consider as far as re-crediting of debited amount from the ECL is concerned, and the amount will be re-credited using PMT-03 in the ECL of the applicant. 9. Therefore, the Respondents hereby reiterate that the amount of Rs. 3,39,79,974/- (Rupees Three Crores Thirty-Nine Lakhs Seventy Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy-Four Only) which includes (IGST- Rs. 2,40,48,974, CGST-Rs 3000, SGST-Rs 3000 and CESS-Rs 99,25,000) that were debited for the purpose of refund claim by the taxpayer shall be re-credited to the ECL of the Petitioner by the Respondents even though the Petitioner has not followed the procedural requirements under the Act, 2017." 7. Thus, the stand of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....debit of refund amount. 3. Copy of Cancelled cheque. 4. Declaration regarding not having been prosecuted for any offences when the amount of tax evaded exceeds to hundred and fifty lakh rupees. 12. From a perusal of the records, it is clear that from the date of filing of refund application, the mandate for scrutinizing and issuance of deficiency memos within 15 days has not been adhered to by the Department. However, after issuance of the deficiency memo on 3rd March 2020, the Petitioner withdrew the application for refund on 17th March 2020. Thereafter the case of the Petitioner is that it regularly followed up with the department but there is no written communication. The first written communication is of 29th August 2023, when the Petitioner stated that it could not file a reply to the Deficiency Memo due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Vide this letter, the refund was once again sought by the Petitioner. 13. The entire scheme for grant of refunds has been considered by this Court in Bansal International v. Commissioner of DGST (W.P.(C) 11629/2023, decided on 21st November, 2023) wherein the Court has clearly held that a party would be entitled to interest on the amount of refu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... due, which remains unpaid even after sixty days from the date of application for refund; the proviso provides for an increased rate of interest for the period that commences from the date immediately after the expiry of sixty days from the date of application which is filed pursuant to the claim for refund attaining finality in appellate proceedings. Section 56 of the CGST Act, thus, works as follows. The applicant claiming a refund is entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from a date immediately after the expiry of sixty days from making an application under Section 54(1) of the CGST Act. However, if a person's claim is denied (or if granted is not accepted by the Revenue) and the order of the Adjudicating Authority is carried in appeal to the Appellate Authority or to the Appellate Tribunal/High Court, which finally upholds the claim, the applicant may have to file a second application to secure the refund. If such application for refund filed by the person consequent to succeeding before the Appellate Authority, Appellate Tribunal or court, is not processed within a period of sixty days of filing the application, the applicant would be entitled to a higher rate of 9%....