M/S. REGAL ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS PVT LTD.
VERSUS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CGST & CE, PALLAVARAM DIVISION, CHENNAI OUTER COMMISSIONERATE, CHENNAI
P. No. 29256 of 2024
Dated: 14.10.2024
Facts:
M/S. Regal Engineers (“the petitioner”) is engaged in civil contracting works and registered under GST, supplied goods to an SEZ unit in October 2017 and paid IGST of ₹4,95,073/-. Claiming that these were zero-rated supplies under Section 16 of the IGST Act, 2017.
The petitioner filed a refund application on February 22, 2018 in Form RFD-01. Despite reminders and submission of requisite documents, the respondent did not act on the application for over a year. In May 2023, the petitioner was informed that a Deficiency Memo dated April 12, 2019 was issued but allegedly never received. The respondent subsequently declined to process the refund application, citing expiration of the time limit.
Now the issue arises, whether the respondent's failure to process the refund application within the stipulated time and the alleged non-receipt of the Deficiency Memo justify the court’s intervention to direct the processing of the refund application?
The Hon’ble Madras High Court noted that, the refund application was filed within the prescribed time, considering the petitioner's assertion that the Deficiency Memo was not received and the respondent's inaction for over a year, followed by the issuance of the Deficiency Memo, was unreasonable.
The court held that, the refund application should be processed without invoking the limitation period and pass appropriate orders within four weeks, ensuring the petitioner is given an opportunity of hearing, hence writ petition was disposed of.
To read more about this Judgement, subscribe today: https://taxo.online/product/taxo-pro/
Already a subscriber, Click to LOGIN & refer to the TAXO GST CASE LAWS
Or
Call us:- +91 99101 67919, 99996 93426
