M/S Lupin LTD vs. The Union Of INDIA
Held
The Court noted that both parties reiterated their contentions. Ultimately, with the consent of both counsel, the Writ Petition was disposed of by directing the Petitioner to make a fresh application for refund. This fresh application is to be made in terms of Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST, dated 18.11.2019, within a period of four weeks from the date of the order. The authorities are then directed to dispose of this fresh application on merits and in accordance with law as early as possible, preferably within three weeks thereafter. The Court did not make any specific finding on the merits of the original rejection order or the Petitioner's entitlement to the refund based on the initial filing, as the matter was resolved by consent for a fresh application.
Facts
The Petitioner, engaged in manufacturing and exporting pharmaceuticals, migrated to the GST regime. They made zero-rated supplies to SEZ units and paid IGST, making them eligible for a refund under Section 54 of the CGST Act. Due to the non-availability of an electronic refund module, a temporary mechanism required filing Form GST RFD-01A online and submitting physical documents. The Petitioner followed this procedure. However, in February 2020, the Department refused to accept physical documents, citing a CBIC Circular dated 18.11.2019, which mandated electronic filing from 26.09.2019. The Petitioner claimed their application was already processed and they couldn't refile. After raising a helpdesk ticket and correspondence, the Petitioner was informed on 21.07.2020 that their refund was rejected (Form GST RFD-06) for non-submission of supporting documents. The Petitioner received the rejection order physically on 28.07.2020, prompting the filing of this writ petition.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a refund of IGST paid on zero-rated supplies under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017, read with Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, 2017, despite the procedural complexities arising from the transition to the GST regime and the subsequent circulars. Petitioner's arguments: The Petitioner contended that they followed the prescribed procedure for refund claims during the initial phase of GST, which involved submitting physical documents due to the non-availability of the electronic module. They argued that they were unable to refile the application electronically as it was already marked as 'processed' and that the rejection was based on a procedural technicality that was not their fault. Revenue's arguments: The Revenue argued that the refund claim could not be processed without documentary evidence. They relied on the CBIC Circular dated 18.11.2019, which mandated the submission of refund applications along with supporting documents electronically on the common portal from 26.09.2019, and stated that supporting documents are crucial for processing refund claims.
Sections Cited
Section 54, Rule 89
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU W.P. No. 21405 of 2020
ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice C. Praveen Kumar)
1) Heard Sri. Bharat Raichandani, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Sri. B.V.S. Chalapathi Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5. 2) The present Writ Petition came to be filed seeking issuance of a writ of Certiorari for the following reliefs: a) Quash the impugned Order No. VJAGST- REJ/266/2019-20 dated 27.11.2019; b) Quash the impugned letter bearing C. No. V/18/102/2020-Refunds dated 29.06.2020, and; c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, directing the Respondents to sanction entire refund claim with interest to the Petitioner under the provisions of Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, 2017 and to pass such other reliefs”.
2 3) The facts, in issue, are as under: i. The Petitioner herein is engaged in manufacture and export of medicaments/pharmaceuticals products, falling under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. ii. With the introduction of Go
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.