9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 685X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lication Reference Number (ARN) AA200318232092U dated 04.03.2019 for the period July, 2017 to March, 2018 on account of 'refund of ITC on export of goods and services without payment of tax' has been rejected. (ii) For issuance of further writ/order/direction including Writ of Mandamus, directing Respondent-authorities, particularly Respondent No.3 to immediately refund an amount of Rs. 2,90,86,294/- for the period 2017-18 as admittedly the Petitioner is entitled for refund of the said amount in terms of the provisions of Section 54(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. (iii) For issuance of further writ/order/direction including Writ of Mandamus, directing Respondents to pay statutory interest on the refundable amount of Rs. 2,90,86,294/- @ 6% with effect from expiry of 60 days from the date of receipt of application for refund, till the date of payment of the refundable amount. 2. The facts as it emerges for the averments made in the respective affidavits it appears that the Petitioner is a government company and the instant writ application pertains to its Bokaro Steel Plant, which is primarily engaged in the business of manufacture of iron and steel and is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petitioner filed several representations and repeatedly followed up with Respondent-authorities for issuance of refund payment advice, but, in vain. After a lapse of about two and half years, despite repeated follow-ups by the Petitioner, Respondent No.3, for the first time, vide its Letter No. 155 dated 9th April, 2022, communicated to the Petitioner that the erstwhile Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Bokaro Circle, Bokaro had passed an order on 22.10.2019 in Form RFD 01-B, wherein its application for refund has been rejected and the amount towards accumulated ITC has been credited in Petitioner's electronic credit ledger on 22.10.2019. Petitioner, immediately on receipt of the said information, applied for certified copy of the entire order-sheet including certified copy of RFD 01-B as well as the purported order passed pertaining to rejection of its claim for refund. The Petitioner was supplied certified copy of Form RFD 01-B, wherein the order rejecting refund was described as 'Order No. 91 dated 18.10.2019', but Petitioner was not supplied the said order by Respondent-authorities. Since no order rejecting refund was supplied to the Petitioner, the Petitioner, thereafter, aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n their Counter Affidavit stated that since the amount of accumulated ITC has already been re-credited in the electronic credit ledger of the Petitioner, the writ application of the Petitioner for seeking refund of accumulated ITC along with interest was not maintainable. 9. This Court, after noticing the aforesaid facts, especially the fact that Petitioner was earlier communicated that its refund has been sanctioned and also the fact that the order rejecting refund of the Petitioner was not available as per official record, formed an opinion that in absence of any order available on record rejecting the claim of refund of the Petitioner, it cannot be said that any decision has been taken towards sanction or rejection of refund application of the Petitioner. Under the said circumstances, this Court, vide order dated 30th January, 2023, passed following order:- "Writ petition has been preferred for a direction upon the respondents to produce the refund rejection order being RFD-06 no. 91 dated 18.10.2019 allegedly passed by respondent no.3 and to consequentially quash the same. Petitioner has sought consequential relief of refund of Rs. 2,90,86,294/- for the period 2017-18 along ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shown as refund sanction. Neither the sanction order nor the rejection order is there. It is the case of the petitioner that all such refund applications for subsequent periods 2018-19 and 2019-20 have already been sanctioned. In these circumstances, we are left with nothing to decide because ball still lies in the court of the tax authorities. Apparently no decision on sanction or rejection seems to have been taken on the refund application. Before proceeding to ask the concerned officials to explain such a contradictory stand,we deem it proper to allow the respondents to take a decision on the refund application of the Petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. Petitioner shall cooperate in debiting the electronic credit ledger of the amount which was credited to his electronic credit ledger as and when asked for. Let the matter be listed on 1st March, 2023." 10. In compliance of the order passed by this Court, petitioner has debited the amount of Rs. 2,90,86,294/- from its electronic credit ledger on 13.02.2023 and approached the Respondent-authorities for processing its refund application. Thereafter, the matter was listed before this Court on 15.03.2023, 23.03. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was only on the basis of the finding of the Tax Official which was subject to decision taken by the authorized officer. Further, reliance has been placed to the provisions of Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules, which provides for the detailed mechanism for considering the application for refund and grant of opportunity of hearing before any refund claim is sought to be dismissed by the authority. 13. Mr. Gadodia, while placing reliance upon Circular No. 17/17/2017-GST dated 15.11.2017, has contended that said Circular issued by CBEC provided mechanism for manual processing of the claim for refund, but the procedure prescribed under the CGST Rules regarding processing of claim for refund was still required to be followed by the prescribed authority, and, if prescribed authority was of the opinion that claim for refund of a dealer is required to be rejected under Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules, a notice in Form GST RFD-08 was required to be given to the said dealer asking it to file its show cause reply as to why claim for refund be not rejected. It was contended that no show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner in Form GST RFD-08 and it was submitted that there was no occasion for is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... guidelines were obtained from GSTN Legal Cell, Delhi and an e-mail dated 20.02.2023 was received, wherein it was advised that since the process of filing of application for refund was part manual and part online, tax payers may be advised to file refund application under any suitable category as per direction of the Hon'ble High Court. It has been submitted that since refund of the Petitioner has already been rejected and the amount has been re-credited in its electronic credit ledger, Petitioner should file fresh application for refund which shall be considered by the Department and appropriate order for refund shall be passed. 16. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have carefully examined the documents available on record and from recital of the same, it would be evident that Petitioner has filed refund application on 04.03.2019 and vide email dated 22.10.2019 and corresponding communication in GSTN Portal, Petitioner was informed that its refund application has been sanctioned which is awaiting issuance of payment advice under RFD-05 by the jurisdictional officer. Consequent thereto, Petitioner repeatedly followed-up with the Respondent- Department for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Union of India vs. Tata Chemicals (supra); in the said case it has been held that obligation to refund money received and retained without right implies and carries with it the right of interest. Whenever money has been received by a party which ex ae quo et bono ought to be refunded, the right to interest follows, as a matter of course. 19. At this stage, it may be noted here that Petitioner applied for refund for the subsequent periods also towards unutilized ITC on account of compensation cess i.e., for the periods April, 2018 to March, 2019 and April, 2019 to March, 2020. It is an admitted fact that refund for the subsequent periods has already been sanctioned in favour of the Petitioner. Petitioner has further annexed a copy of its Electronic Credit Ledger from which it is reflected that as on 31.03.2021, Petitioner was having an excess ITC of Rs. 359.54 crores as closing balance towards compensation cess in its electronic credit ledger. Thus, re-credit of an amount of Rs. 2,90,86,294/- being the refundable amount for the period 2017-18 in the electronic credit ledger of the Petitioner towards compensation cess, was making no difference as the Petitioner has not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
