Back
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Medicamen Biotech Limited – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts related to gst refund application and orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments concerning the validity of refund claim. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's analysis on refund application requirements. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. impugned order deemed not sustainable in law. (Para 15) |
| 5. writ petition allowed; prior order revived. (Para 16) |
ORDER :
1. With the consent of the parties, this petition is heard finally.
2. The petitioner, having GSTIN 08AACM1217A1Z9, filed refund application in Form RFD-01 amounting to Rs. 14,34,804/- vide ARN No. AA0812200031153 under the category “supply made to SEZ unit/Developer with payment of Tax” for the period July, 2020 in terms of the provisions of Section 54 , sub-section (3)(ii) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CGST Act of 2017') read with Rule 89, sub-rule (5) of the CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX RULES , 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CGST Rules of 2017'). On the basis of the aforesaid application, the proper officer, i.e., the Adjudicating Authority sanctioned refund of an amount of Rs. 14,30,110/- vide refund sanction order No. Z081200148802 dated 14.12.2020 p
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an application for refund accompanied by the required documentary evidences cannot be ignored for the purposes of limitation, and Rule 90(3) c....
The filing of an application for refund in the prescribed form and manner stops the running of the limitation period, even if further documents or clarifications are sought by the proper officer.
The court established that the requirement for a certified copy of an order is not applicable when the order is available on the common portal, reflecting a shift towards practical accessibility in l....
The Appellate Authority has the power to accept additional evidence, including endorsement certificates, in the given circumstances, where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from produci....
The court established that the limitation period for refund applications under the CGST Act is determined by the original filing date, not subsequent deficiencies.
The court ruled that the denial of a tax refund on grounds of limitation was wrong, emphasizing the principle of unjust enrichment, and clarified that the time limit of two years for refund applicati....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of unjust enrichment and the applicability of Section 54 of the CGST Act in claiming refunds under the GST regime.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
