The Bombay High Court has restored the refund application made in Form GST RFD 01 subject to cost of Rs. 2 Lakhs.Â
The bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain have observed that merely seeking adjournments and then contending that adjournment applications were not responded to or decided one way or the other is not grounds to complain about any failure of natural justice.
The bench stated that the petitioner/assessee must accept the blame for not responding to the show cause notice within the time granted and raising the contentions which have now been raised before us after the impugned order was made. Since there was no response the department cannot be faulted t for making the order.
Form RFD-01 is an application for the online processing of refunds under GST. It is to be e-filed on the GST portal to claim the refund of: Taxes, cess and interest paid in case of zero-rated supplies (except the export of goods with tax payment). Balance of excess cash paid into the electronic cash ledger.
The petitioner/assessee has challenged the order rejecting the petitioner’s application for a refund.
The assessee contended that though this order is appealable, this is a case of breach of natural justice. Even if the violation of natural justice is not considered for a moment, still, a case of remand is made out. The appeal is rejected due to some alleged procedural deficiencies. But no deficiency memo was ever given, and the Petitioner was denied the opportunity of refiling the appeal after clearing the shortcoming.
The assessee relied on the decision of in the case of M/s Knowledge Capital Services Private Limited Vs. Union of India and Ors., in which, it is provided that in case of deficiencies in the refund application, a deficiency memo in form GST RFD 03 is required to be issued, and the applicant can then exercise the option of withdrawing such application and filing a fresh application after clearing the deficiencies. Since this was not done in the present case, the order must be set aside.
The department contended that a necessary show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, inter alia requiring the petitioner to show cause why the refund application should not be rejected on the grounds of deficiencies. He submits that despite such a notice, no cause was shown, and therefore, the impugned order was made.
The court noted that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, and the petitioner avoided or failed to respond to show cause notice.
The court held that in the interest of justice it would require the petitioner to pay costs of Rs.2,00,000 within 4 weeks to the Deputy Commissioner. Subject to depositing such costs within 4 weeks, given the peculiar circumstances and the fact that no GST RFD 03 was issued to the petitioner, the order was qashed and restored the petitioner’s refund application made in form GST RFD 01 to the file.
Read More: GST Weekly Flashback: 8 to 14 December 2024
Case Details
Case Title: Raiden Infotech India Private Ltd. Versus The State of Maharashtra
Case No.: Writ Petition (L) No. 22309 Of 2024
Date: 14/12/2024
Counsel For Petitioner: Darius B Shroff, Senior Advocate, a/w Jasmine Dixit, Mahir
Counsel For Respondent: Amar Mishra, AGP
