Ms Gajanand Udyog PVT LTD Through Its Director Pradeep Kumar Pandey vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner State Tax Department

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Gajanand Udyog Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ application challenging an ex parte order dated 23.09.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (respondent No. 2), which rejected their refund application without following due procedure. They also challenged the appellate order dated 22.12.2020 by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), which affirmed the initial rejection. The petitioner sought the refund of Rs. 3,13,835/- with interest. The petitioner had purchased raw materials at 18% tax and supplied final goods at 5% tax to M/s. Vedanta Limited for petroleum operations, leading to accumulated credit. They filed an online refund application in FORM GST RFD-01A and an offline application on 30.04.2019 for the refund amount of Rs. 3,13,835/-.

Held

The Court held that the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondents, pursuant to an order dated 16.03.2023, was significant. In Paragraph-12 of this affidavit, the respondents admitted that an erroneous calculation was made by the officer concerned and that the petitioner's claim for a refund of Rs. 3,13,835.13 was correct. The Court also noted the petitioner's submission that the entire due amount had already been deposited. Therefore, the Court found no impediment to refunding the admitted amount. The ratio decidendi is that where the revenue admits an error in calculation and confirms the correctness of the refund amount in a supplementary affidavit, and the petitioner has cleared any outstanding dues, the refund should be processed. The Court directed respondent No. 2 to refund Rs. 3,13,835.13 to the petitioner along with statutory interest, if any, within four weeks, without directly interfering with the impugned orders.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex parte order dated 23.09.2019 rejecting the petitioner's refund application and the appellate order dated 22.12.2020 affirming it were passed in violation of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, specifically proviso to Rule 92(3)? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned orders were passed without following the prescribed procedure. They argued that there was no outstanding tax liability under the JVAT regime and no mistake in the refund calculation. They relied on Notification No. 3/2017 regarding the tax rate on final goods and Section 54(3) of the JGST Act for their refund claim. They further highlighted that a subsequent supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondents admitted an error in calculation and confirmed the correctness of the refund amount of Rs. 3,13,835.13. Revenue's arguments: The respondents initially argued that at the time the impugned orders were passed, there was a CST due amount, which was subsequently reduced. They submitted that the petitioner has since deposited the balance amount and, in view of Paragraph-12 of the supplementary counter affidavit, is entitled to the refund amount of Rs. 3,13,835.13.