The main legal point established is that the Circular does not bar manual filing of refund applications, and rejection based solely on non-electronic filing is contrary to the relevant rules.

JUDGMENT :

R.D. Dhanuka, J.

1. Rule. Mr.Walve, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 waives service. Mr.Mangade, learned counsel for Respondent No.5 waives service.

2. By consent of learned counsel for the Parties, the Petition is heard finally.

3. By this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has impugned the Order dated 18th February 2021 passed by the Respondent No.3, rejecting the application filed by the Petitioner on the ground that the refund claim application was not filed electronically, which was mandatory with effect from 26th September 2019 and onwards in accordance with Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST dated 18th November 2019 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, GST Policy Wing.

4. The Petitioner had entered into an Agreement for Sale on 10th May 2018 with Respondent No.5, which was duly registered. The Respondent No.5 paid GST as per Tax Invoice in the sum of Rs.18,26,412/-. It is the case of the Respondent No.5 that, since the loan was not sanctioned in favour of the Petitioner by the bank, said Agreement for Sale has been terminated. However, the parties have not entered into ‘Deed of Cancellation’ till date. The statement made across the bar and in the Affidavit-in-Reply are accepted.

5. On 4th September 2020 the Petitioner preferred an application to the Respondent No.3 in Form GST-RFD-01-A and enclosed all other particulars and evidence for refund of the GST paid by the Respondent No.5, which was collected from the Petitioner. On 6th January 2021 the Petitioner No.1 received a letter from the Respondent No.2 seeking information as to whether the Respondent No.5 has sought refund of GST in respect of the same transaction. The Petitioner informed the Respondent No.2 by an email sent on the same date that the Respondent No.5 had not sought any refund for the said amount, which was claimed by the Petitioner.

6. On 18th February 2021, the Respondent No.2 rejected the application for refund made by the Petitioner under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, ‘C.G.S.T. Act’) on the ground that the refund application was not filed electronically and not in compliance with the Circular dated 18th November 2019. The Petitioner thus filed this Writ Petition inter-alia praying for a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting the Order dated 18th February 2021 passed by the Respondent No.3 and for writ of mandamus directing the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider and process the application for refund dated 4th September 2020 filed by the petitioner.

7. The Writ petition is opposed by the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 by filing Affidavit-in-Reply. In so far as the Respondent No.5 is concerned, the Respondent No.5 has not applied for any refund in respect of Agreement entered into between the Petitioner and the Respondent No.5. In para (g) of the Affidavit-in-Reply, it is stated that the Respondent No.5 has already shared a draft Deed of Cancellation with the Petitioner on 9th March 2021. The Petitioner has not come forward for execution and registration of ‘Cancellation of Deed’.

8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner invited our attention to the correspondence exchanged between the parties and would submit that the Respondent No.5, who had collected GST from the Petitioner on the said Agreement for Sale, has admittedly deposited the said amount with the Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Though the said Agreement is proposed to be cancelled by the Respondent No.5, admittedly the Respondent No.5 has not claimed any refund paid by the Respondent No.5 to the Respondent Nos.1 to 4. The Petitioner is thus entitled to claim refund of the said GST paid by the Respondent No.5 after collecting the same from the Petitioner on the said Agreement for Sale.

9. In support of this submission, learned counsel placed reliance on Section 54(1) of the C.G.S.T. Act and would submit that the Petitioner being any pe