Dantara Jewellers vs. The State Of Kerala

Held

The High Court found the rejection based on the difference between temporary and regular GSTINs to be hyper-technical and contrary to the GST regime's intent for hassle-free refunds. Acknowledging technical glitches during the transition phase, the Court set aside the rejection order and directed the respondents to refund the amount with interest within 30 days.

Facts

The petitioner's gold consignment was intercepted under Section 129 of the CGST Act, leading to a payment of Rs. 12,26,064/- via demand drafts into a temporary GST account for goods release. An appeal subsequently found no tax evasion. The petitioner's refund application under Section 54 was rejected because the initial payment was made through a temporary GSTIN, different from the regular GSTIN used for the refund claim.

Key Issues

Whether a refund of tax, initially paid through a temporary GST account for goods release, can be denied solely because the refund application is filed under the taxpayer's regular GSTIN, especially after an appellate authority has found no tax evasion. The core issue is the relevance of the initial payment's source/mode for a legitimate refund claim.