Little Brain Works PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed for the following relief; pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Orders, Direction Directions by or a) Directing the respondent authorities to process the application that has already submitted by the petitioner for refund of Input Tax Credit for an amount of Rs.40,10,932 (Rupees Forty Lakhs Nine Hundred Thirty Two) for the period from April, 2018 to March, 2019. Alternatively, to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to respondents to re-open the common portal and allow the petitioner to file the Letter of Undertaking to avail the refund of the input tax credit for the period from April 2018 to March 2019 and not to charge interest from the petitioner to the extent of that amount so as to prevent the miscarriage of justice; In case the respondents are unable to do so i.e., re-open the common portal and allow the petitioner they be directed to entertain the Letter of Undertaking of the petitioner manually/physicaliy with supporting records Declare that the Deifciency Memos issued by the Respondent No.3 1^ deficiency memo no.ZA371219002085S dated 31-12-2019 and 2"“ deficiency memo ZA3701200007842 dated 17-01- 2020 as invalid To hold that the petitioner shall not be treated as in default in compliance; To ensure that the petitioner is allowed to pay its taxes on regular electronic system after utilization of the input tax credit Any other and further relief deemedJust and proper be granted in the interest ofJustice to provide for the cost of this petition and to pass ” b) c) d) e) f) g) Though many prayers have been made in the writ petition but at the time of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities may be directed to process the petitioner’s application which has already been submitted for refund of Input Tax Credit which may redress the grievance of the petitioner. The prayer (a) is to that effect.

On the petitioner’s application for refund, a deficiency memo dated 31.12.2019 (Ex.P9) was issued with the remarks that no supporting documents were attached. The Taxpayer was advised to file a fresh refund application rectifying the deficiencies. The petitioner’s case is that since the portal was closed, fresh application could not be filed on portal and the deficiencies pointed out could also not be removed and the respondent authorities would not accept manual filing.

Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax submits that the stand taken in the counter affidavit is the same as in the deficiency memo. He submits that the Letter of Undertaking (LUT) was not uploaded. The fresh application was also filed without filing of LUT which is required under Section 16(3)(a) of the IGST Act, 2017 r/w Rules 89 to 96-A of the Central goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. 7. On 24.04.2024 this Court passed the following order; “The submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per Ex.P4, the petitioner had successfully saved GST RFD - 11 - Application for furnishing Letter of Undertaking for export of Goods and Services and the same could be retrieved, but as after receipt of the deficiency memo, the petitioner tried to submit, the portal was closed. He submits that though the application already saved can be retrieved, but it cannot be filed fresh online. On the request made by Sri T. C. D. Sekhar, learned Government Pleader, list on 01.05.2024, to enable him to obtain instructions, if the petitioner's fresh application for furnishing the letter of undertaking can be entertained manually." Learned Government Pleader submits that the claim for refund is to be 2. 8. made on portal and the deficiency required to be removed was also to be on portal. However, it is not contested that as the portal is closed, the petitioner cannot use the portal for the claim in question.

The rules of procedure are handmade of justice. They are for effective and timely redressal of the grievance. They are not for destroying the rights or to defeat the legitimate claims. If the petitioner could not do the needful on portal in time for the reasons disclosed, he cannot be denied of his right for consideration of the claim for refund under the statute. Considering the aforesaid, but without entering into the merits of the claim of the petitioner for refund either way, we dispose of the writ petition finally by providing that the petitioner shall be at liberty to file an application for refund completing the requisite documents making good the deficiency pointed in the deficiency memo, manually, within a period of two (02) weeks along with the copy of this order before the Competent Authority. If any such application is filed or/and deficiency is removed, manually, the petitioner’s claim for refund shall be considered and appropriate decision would be taken in accordance with law by the competent authority within a further period of six (06) weeks. It is made clear that the claim would not be rejected on the ground that the same is made manually. 10. as 11. Writ Petition is disposed of finally. No orders as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. SHAIKMOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //// SECTION OFFICER To,

One CC to Sri Samireddy Sai Sarat Chandra, Advocate [OPUC] ^ [ORJC^ Government Counsel) Commercial Tax, High Court of Andhra

Three C.D. Copies. Pradesh. Cnr