TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 882
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....17 seeking refund in the Form GST RFD-01. 2. Since the said proceedings were not decided, the petitioner approached this Court through Writ Petition (Civil) No. 14121 of 2025, which was allowed vide order dated 28th March, 2025, in terms of prayer clause (i), which reads thus: (i) Issue a writ in the seeking writ of mandamus and/ or any other appropriate writ, directing the respondent department to sanction the refund claims filed by the Petitioner under. Refund Application dated 30.11.2023 (Reference no. AA071123082463F) for the amount of Rs. 70,09,455/- for the period April 2020 to March 2022, along with the applicable interest as per the provisions of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and rules made thereunder; 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... submits that the Petitioner's application had inadvertently been sent to a wrong ward officer which resulted in the delay in the refund being disbursed. 7. Considering the same, let the Petitioner file a fresh application seeking the refund within one week. Once the application is filed, the refund shall be processed expeditiously, without fail. 8. List on 12th September, 2025." 5. Since, vide aforesaid order, this Court permitted the petitioner to file a fresh application in view of default of the respondent in the matter of processing the earlier application, and the refund was directed to be processed. 6. Thereafter, the matter was again listed before this Court on various occasions and on 12th December, 2025, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h, 2025 on 17th December, 2025. 7. At this stage, Mr. Garg, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner is willing to file an amended manual return. 8. Let the said request be made before the said Bench on 17th December, 2025." 7. As a sequel of the aforesaid order dated 12th December, 2025, the matter was again placed before the Court who has passed the earlier order dated 28th March, 2025. 8. The Bench dealing with the matter on 13th February, 2026, has refused to go into the clarification, saying that the order is quite clear and no further clarification is required, and it was directed that the present petitioner can take appropriate steps in the matter. 9. This led to the petitioner filing the Contempt proceedings, being ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the refund application, the respondent has to either point out discrepancy/deficiency in FORM GST RFD-03 or acknowledge the refund application in FORM GST RFD-02. In the event deficiencies are noted and communicated to the applicant, then the applicant would have to file a fresh refund application after rectifying the deficiencies. The relevant portion of Rule 90 of the CGST/DGST Rules is reproduced herein below: "90. Acknowledgement.-.... (1) Where the application relates to a claim for refund from the electronic cash ledger, an acknowledgement in FORM GST RFD-02 shall be made available to the applicant through the common portal electronically, clearly indicating the date of filing of the claim for refund and the time per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pplication would be presumed to be complete in all respects in accordance with sub-rules (2), (3) and (4) of rule 89 of the CGST/DGST Rules. 10. To allow the respondent to issue a deficiency memo today would amount to enabling the respondent to process the refund application beyond the statutory time-lines as provided under rule 90 of the CGST Rules, referred above. This could then also be construed as rejection of the petitioner's initial application for refund as the petitioner would thereafter have to file a fresh refund application after rectifying the alleged deficiencies. This would not only delay the petitioner's right to seek refund, but also impair petitioner's right to claim interest from the relevant date of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... petitioner, despite the aforesaid directions. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the matter is under active consideration of the department and that the requisite steps shall be taken to furnish the refund due to the petitioner, in terms of the directions contained in the judgment / order dated 28.03.2025 read with order dated 13.02.2026, and in accordance with law. 5. Let necessary compliance be done within a period of three weeks from today. 6. The petition is disposed of in the above terms." 10. It appears that subsequent to the aforesaid order, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent on 24th March, 2026, thereby the request of the petitioner for refund came to be rejected. ....