2020 (11) TMI 788 - HC - GST

Refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit - Section 54 (3) (b) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 - HELD THAT - The Court considers it appropriate to dispose of the present petition by directing the Respondents to process the Petitioner s application for refund and pass appropriate orders thereon not later than 31st January 2021 and communicate the decision to the Petitioner not later than 8th February 2021. If the Petitioner is aggrieved by the said order it will be open to the Petitioner to seek appropriate remedies in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit under Section 54 of the CGST Act and Rule 89 of the CGST Rules.

Analysis:
The petitioner applied for a refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit amounting to Rs. 14,21,479 due to an inverted tax structure under Section 54 of the CGST Act. Despite filing the refund application on 11th January, 2020, the amount had not been refunded. The GST web portal initially acknowledged the application but later generated an error message, leading to difficulties in uploading the refund claim. The petitioner made multiple attempts to upload the form, filed complaints, and received instructions from the web portal's helpdesk. The petition sought a direction for the refund and challenged the validity of a specific circular.

The High Court, after hearing both parties, directed the Respondents to process the petitioner's refund application and make a decision by 31st January, 2021. The decision was to be communicated to the petitioner by 8th February, 2021. The Court allowed the petitioner to seek further remedies if aggrieved by the decision. Additionally, the Court noted that other issues raised in the petition could be addressed at a later stage as they were premature for consideration at that point.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on addressing the immediate grievance of the petitioner regarding the refund of Input Tax Credit under the CGST Act and Rules. The Court's directive aimed to ensure timely processing of the refund application and communication of the decision to the petitioner. The judgment maintained the petitioner's right to pursue further legal remedies if dissatisfied with the outcome.