Abhishek Ramisetty vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax, Howrah CGST And Cx Commissionerate And Arn.

Held

The Court held that since the respondents identified the specific deficiencies in court, which were then recorded, there was no impediment for the petitioner to refile the applications in the proper form. The Court permitted the petitioner to take appropriate steps and file proper applications. The Court directed that if the petitioner files corrected applications in Form GST RFD-01 within six weeks from the date of the order, the proper officer shall process them within eight weeks thereafter. The deficiencies were to be treated as having been communicated to the petitioner in court on the date of the order. The Court noted that the respondents had initially stated that deficiency memoranda were uploaded, but the particulars could not be identified by their counsel. Subsequently, upon production of records, the specific deficiencies were articulated by the respondents' counsel.

Facts

The petitioner, Abhishek Ramisetty, filed a writ petition seeking a direction for the processing of refund applications totaling Rs. 1,11,92,037/- for the periods April 2020 to March 2021, April 2021 to March 2022, and April 2022 to March 2023. The petitioner contended that the respondents failed to upload specific deficiencies in Form GST RFD-03, despite deficiency memoranda appearing on the portal, thus preventing corrective action. The respondents initially stated that deficiency memoranda were uploaded but could not identify the particulars. Upon production of records, the respondents argued that the petitioner failed to file declarations required under the second proviso to Section 54(3) and Section 54(3)(ii) of the CGST Act, and that Annexure B to the refund application lacked HSN/SAC codes. They also stated that Annexure-1 and Statement 1A, as required by Rule 89(5) and Rule 89(2)(h) respectively, were not filed, leading to the issuance of deficiency memoranda.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents' failure to upload specific deficiencies in Form GST RFD-03, as required by Rule 90(3) of the CGST/WBGST Rules, 2017, prejudiced the petitioner's ability to rectify their refund applications, thereby violating principles of natural justice? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the absence of disclosed deficiencies in Form GST RFD-03, which are statutorily mandated under Rule 90(3), made it extremely difficult to take corrective steps for their refund applications. Revenue's Contention: The respondents contended that the refund applications were deficient as the petitioner failed to file the required declarations under the second proviso to Section 54(3) and Section 54(3)(ii) of the CGST Act. They further argued that Annexure B to the application lacked HSN/SAC codes and that Annexure-1 (Statement 1) and Statement 1A, as per Rule 89(5) and Rule 89(2)(h) respectively, were not filed. These omissions, they argued, justified the issuance of deficiency memoranda, with the specific deficiency selected being 'supporting documents attached are incomplete' due to portal limitations.