TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he controversy essentially revolves around whether the petitioner did make an application within the period and/or was prevented from doing so. It is not disputed that at the material time, there was confusion regarding the implementation of the Goods and Services Tax regime which had been rolled out - In the present case, there is no dispute that the petitioner had attempted to upload its application for refund but could not do so on account of technical glitches - it is difficult to accept that the petitioner s legitimate right to seek refund could be foreclosed on account of such technical glitches. There is no dispute that the petitioner had attempted to file an application for refund on the GST portal twice but its application could not be uploaded on account of technical glitches. It is not disputed that the petitioner had also made a complaint and a ticket for the same was also raised. It cannot be accepted that the petitioner s claim for refund is required to be denied on the ground of delay - the proper officer is directed to examine the petitioner s claim for refund and process the same, if it is found that the petitioner is entitled to the same. Petition allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... countered on the GST portal. 8. The petitioner once again attempted to file an application for refund of unutilised ITC for the month of July, 2017 on 08.08.2018. However, the petitioner was unable to complete the process on account of technical errors encountered on the GST Portal. 9. Aggrieved by being unable to file the applications for refunds online, the petitioner filed a complaint on the GST portal under the GST Redressal Section. The petitioner s complaint was acknowledged and a ticket bearing no. 2018080832227 was issued. 10. The petitioner claims that he made several efforts to manually submit its application. However, the concerned officer declined to accept the same. This assertion is disputed by the respondents as the respondents do not have any record of the same. 11. The petitioner made a consolidated application (in FORM GST RFD-01) for the refund of unutilised ITC exports effected during the financial year 2017-18 on 05.02.2020 claiming a refund of ₹13,43,757/-. 12. The petitioner s application for refund under Section 54 of the CGST Act was rejected on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of two years from the relevant date being the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r all assessees to file forms regarding transition of tax. Lastly, he referred to the decision of this Court in Indglonal Investment and Finance Ltd. and Anr. v. Income Tax Officer and Ors.: 2011: DHC:3175-DB and submitted that a right to refund is a vested right and could not be denied on technical grounds. 16. Mr Vijay Joshi, learned senior standing counsel appearing for the respondents countered the aforesaid submissions. He submitted that the petitioner had faced technical issues in uploading the refund applications on 14.05.2018 and 08.08.2018. A ticket in respect of the petitioner s complaint was also issued on 08.08.2018. However, the petitioner had not filed any claim for refund thereafter. He had done so almost one and a half years later, on 05.02.2020. He contended that in the intervening period, there was no impediment from the petitioner to file its claim for refund. He also contended that to address such issues, the provisions were made to accept applications and returns manually. The said window was opened till 26.09.2019. The respondent also disputed the submissions that the petitioner was advised by the Jurisdictional GST Office to file a refund claim after f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egime which had been rolled out. 21. In terms of Rule 89(1) of Central Goods Services Rules, 2017 (hereafter the CGST Rules ) any person claiming refund of tax was required to make an application electronically in FORM GST RFD-01 along with the requisite documents. 22. By Notification No. 55/2107-CT dated 15.11.2017, Rule 97A was introduced in the CGST Rules specifying that any reference to electronic filing of an application would also include manual filing. However, it is material to note that Rule 97A of the CGST Rules was introduced after the petitioner had exported some of its consignments. 23. It is also material to note that there were technical glitches in the electronic system of the GST authorities and taxpayers across the board were facing difficulties in electronic filing of returns. 24. The Courts across the country in various decisions recognized the difficulties being faced by various taxpayers. In Bhargava Motors v. Union of India Ors.: 2019: DHC:2602-DB ; the Coordinate Bench of this Court recorded that the petitioner s grievance regarding difficulty in filing the correct credit amount in TRAN-1 form, was a genuine one. And, the same ought not t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorities, its claim for refund cannot be denied on account of delay. 27. In the present case, there is no dispute that the petitioner had attempted to upload its application for refund but could not do so on account of technical glitches. We find it difficult to accept that the petitioner s legitimate right to seek refund could be foreclosed on account of such technical glitches. 28. In terms of Rule 97A of the CGST Rules (introduced with effect from 15.11.2017), the petitioner could also file the application manually. However, it must be recognized that the period in question was a period of transition. It was fraught with various kinds of difficulties being faced by the taxpayers migrating to the new regime. 29. It is also acknowledged that there were delays in processing refund due to various taxpayers. In the present case, the petitioner has affirmed that he did not file refund applications manually as he was guided by the jurisdictional GST Officers that the refund claim was required to be filed after the actual GST return in Form GSTR-9 was filed and after obtaining bank realization certificates. The petitioner claims that he filed his return on 30.01.2020 and fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
