9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 1346 - HC - GSTRefund claim in FORM GST RFD-06 - Entitlement to interest on the Balance Refund - petitioner has not furnished material information - participation in the purchase and distribution of LPG empty cylinders and LPG gas - HELD THAT - We have noticed from the pleadings of the petitioner before the concerned authority that LPG Empty Cylinder has not sold to consumer on the other hand he must have sold only gas that means prima facie section 54 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 read with Rule 89(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules 2017 would attract. Be that as it may having regard to the disputed issues the petitioner is relegated to the appellate authority in the event of filing memorandum of appeal before the appellate authority within a period of eight weeks from today. The concerned appellate authority is hereby directed to take note of and decide the memorandum of appeal to be filed on behalf of the appellant within a reasonable period of four months from the date of receipt of such appeal. With the above observation the present CWJC No. 14403 of 2024 stands disposed of.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Court are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 & 2: Validity of the Refund Order and Entitlement to Balance Refund Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The refund claim is governed by Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017, which deals with refund of tax, and Rule 89(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, which provides procedural safeguards and grounds for rejection of refund claims. The petitioner's claim arose under the 'Inverted Duty Structure' provision, which allows refund of the differential tax paid on inputs vis-`a-vis outputs. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that the refund order dated 29.06.2024 partially allowed the claim amounting to Rs. 4,81,247/- and rejected Rs. 1,31,240/- based on the statutory provisions. The rejection was grounded on the interpretation of Section 54 read with Rule 89(5), indicating that the authorities found certain transactions or inputs not qualifying for refund under the law. Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner's pleadings indicated participation in the purchase and distribution of LPG empty cylinders and LPG gas, with the contention that empty cylinders were distributed without sale, and only the gas was sold at different GST rates (5% for domestic consumers and 18% for commercial consumers). However, the petitioner failed to furnish sufficient material evidence to substantiate the claim that the rejected portion of the refund related to transactions qualifying under the inverted duty structure. Application of Law to Facts: The Court observed that the disputed amount related to transactions involving capital goods (gas cylinders) which were not sold by the petitioner, and hence did not qualify for refund under the inverted duty structure provisions. The statutory provisions and rules were applied to reject the claim in respect of these transactions. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner argued entitlement to the entire refund amount based on earlier Court directions and the nature of transactions. The respondents relied on statutory provisions and rules to justify partial rejection. The Court found that the disputed issues required detailed factual and legal examination, unsuitable for adjudication under writ jurisdiction. Conclusions: The Court concluded that the refund order was not liable to be quashed in entirety and that the petitioner's grievance regarding the rejected amount should be addressed through the statutory appellate mechanism rather than writ jurisdiction. Issue 3: Entitlement to Interest on Delayed Refund under Section 56 of the CGST Act Relevant Legal Framework: Section 56 of the CGST Act mandates payment of interest on delayed refunds to the claimant at the prescribed rate. Court's Reasoning: The petitioner sought interest on delayed refund amounting to Rs. 6,12,487/-. However, since the refund claim itself involved disputed issues and partial rejection, and the petitioner had not exhausted statutory remedies, the Court did not adjudicate on entitlement to interest at this stage. Conclusion: The Court did not grant interest relief and implicitly indicated that such claims would be more appropriately considered by the appellate authority along with the substantive refund claim. Issue 4: Claim for Reimbursement of Expenses Incurred in Pursuing Refund Court's Reasoning: The petitioner claimed Rs. 1,65,000/- towards expenses incurred for engaging professionals, re-processing refund applications, and filing writ petitions. The Court did not find any legal basis under the GST Act or procedural rules for awarding such costs in the context of refund claims. Conclusion: The claim for reimbursement of expenses was not entertained. Issue 5: Costs for Respondents' Alleged Bad Conduct and Willful Disregard of Court Orders Court's Reasoning: The petitioner contended that the respondents willfully disregarded the Court's earlier directions dated 29.02.2024, causing undue delay in refund. The Court noted the petitioner's grievance but emphasized that such allegations do not warrant interference under writ jurisdiction without exhausting statutory remedies. Conclusion: No costs were awarded against the respondents for alleged bad conduct. Issue 6: Requirement of Exhaustion of Statutory Remedies Relevant Legal Framework: The principle of exhaustion of statutory remedies mandates that a party aggrieved by an administrative order must first seek redressal through the prescribed statutory appellate mechanisms before approaching the High Court under writ jurisdiction. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court observed that the petitioner had earlier approached the High Court in CWJC No. 18609 of 2023, which was disposed of on 29.02.2024, but that order did not exempt the petitioner from exhausting the remedy of appeal before the appellate authority. The current writ petition was filed without filing the statutory appeal against the refund order dated 29.06.2024. Application of Law to Facts: The Court held that the issues raised involved disputed questions of fact and law, which are better suited for adjudication by the appellate authority. The petitioner was therefore directed to file a memorandum of appeal within eight weeks, and the appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal within four months. Conclusion: The Court declined to entertain the writ petition on merits and relegated the petitioner to the statutory appellate remedy. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court's key legal determinations include:
The Court established the core principle that disputed factual and legal issues arising under the GST refund provisions must be resolved through the statutory appellate process and are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The petitioner's failure to exhaust statutory remedies barred the Court from granting relief on merits. Final determinations on each issue were as follows:
|
