Pankaj Rawat (GST Practitioner) 26 July 2020
Revenue has no right to point out any deficiency in the refund application of petitioner now, if it has not responded to application within the prescribed time of 15 days in the law : Delhi High Court
This is an example set by court that law is same for all. We often see that taxpayer is penalised on late compliance but generally no action is taken on delay from revenue end.
Facts of Case & Arguments bt Petitioner
Present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to respondent to grant refund of ₹ 9,12,893/- claimed under Section 54 of the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Petitioner states that despite the period of fifteen days from the date of filing of the refund application having expired on 19th November, 2019, the respondent has till date neither pointed out any deficiency/discrepancy in FORM GST RFD-03 nor it has issued any acknowledgement in FORM GST RFD-02.
Petitioner further states that, Rule 90(2) and (3) of the DGST Rules states that within fifteen days from the date of filing of the refund application, the respondent has to either point out discrepancy/deficiency in FORM GST RFD-03 or acknowledge the refund application in FORM GST RFD-02.
Held by High Court
Till date the petitioner’s refund application dated 4th November, 2019 has not been processed. As neither any acknowledgment in FORM GST RFD-02has been issued nor any deficiency memo has been issued in RFD-03within time line of fifteen days, the refund application would be presumed to be complete in all respects in accordance with sub-rule (2), (3) and (4) of Rule 89 of CGST/DGST Rules.
To allow the respondent to issue a deficiency memo today would amount to enabling the Respondent to process the refund application beyond the statutory timelines as provided under Rule 90 of the CGST Rules, referred above. This could then also be construed as rejection of the petitioner’s initial application for refund as the petitioner would thereafter have to file a fresh refund application after rectifying the alleged deficiencies. This would not only delay the petitioner’s right to seek refund, but also impair petitioner’s right to claim interest from the relevant date of filing of the original application for refund as provided under the Rules.
Moreover, the respondent’s prayer to raise a deficiency memo is a hyper-technical plea as admittedly, all the relevant documents have been annexed with the present writ petition and the respondent is satisfied about their authenticity.
Consequently, this Court is of the view that the respondent has lost the right to point out any deficiency, in the petitioner’s refund application, at this belated stage.
Accordingly, this Court directs the respondent to pay to the petitioner the refund along with interest in accordance with law within two weeks.