GSI Products VS Union of India

The case summary revolves around three separate petitions related to the failure of the Respondents to issue refunds. In WP(C) 9161/2018, it is indicated that although a refund has been issued, the petitioner has raised additional issues, such as the payment of interest, which still require the Court’s consideration.

Regarding WP(C) 13881/2018, a notice was issued on December 21, 2018, and WP(C) 194/2019, with a notice issued on January 11, 2019, despite multiple court orders directing the Respondents to process the refunds, these refunds have not yet been granted. The delay in issuing the refunds has led to ongoing legal scrutiny, as the Court seeks to ensure compliance with its directives and address the unresolved concerns raised in the petitions.

The summary pertains to three petitions related to the Respondents’ failure to process refunds, which have been brought before the Court for resolution.

1. In WP(C) 9161/2018, the Court was informed that a refund had been issued, but there are additional issues raised in the petition that require consideration, such as the payment of interest on the refund.

2. In WP(C) 13881/2018, notice was issued on December 21, 2018, and in WP(C) 194/2019, notice was issued on January 11, 2019. Despite multiple court orders, the refunds in these petitions have not yet been granted.

3. On January 11, 2019, the Court had previously given the Petitioners permission to submit manual applications for refunds because the two-year period had not yet elapsed. Despite this allowance, refunds were still not processed. Therefore, on March 28, 2019, the Court reiterated its instructions:

* It was reiterated that on January 11, 2019, the Court had granted the Petitioners the liberty to file manual refund applications, noting that the period of two years had not expired. It also clarified that it was within the authority’s discretion to examine these refund applications according to legal standards.

* Following this directive, the Petitioners filed their manual refund applications on January 28, 2019. These applications included the initial online applications submitted on November 2, 2018, along with a copy of the Court’s order.

This sequence of events underscores the Court’s ongoing oversight and the Petitioners’ continued efforts to secure their refunds, despite procedural delays and the necessity for further legal consideration of their claims.

The document pertains to three petitions (WP(C) 9161/2018, WP(C) 13881/2018, and WP(C) 194/2019) focused on the non-granting of refunds by the Respondents. In WP(C) 9161/2018, the Court was informed that a refund had been issued, but issues such as interest and others still needed consideration.

In WP(C) 13881/2018, a notice was issued on December 21, 2018, and in WP(C) 194/2019, a notice was issued on January 11, 2019. Despite multiple court orders, refunds had not been processed. On January 11, 2019, the Court granted the Petitioners permission to file manual refund applications, noting that the period of two years had not expired. This directive allowed the authorities to examine the refund applications in accordance with the law.

The Petitioners submitted their manual refund applications on January 28, 2019, along with an online application filed earlier on November 2, 2018, and a copy of the Court’s order. However, in the case of WP(C) 13881/2018, the GST Officer rejected the application on March 22, 2019, citing the need for electronic filing via FORM GST RFD-01 through the common portal or a designated Facilitation Centre. The Petitioner’s counsel argued that this decision was made without prior notice or a hearing opportunity, rendering the order void as it violated Rule 97A of the CGST rules, which allows for manual filing and processing despite the usual requirement for electronic filing. The rule in question, effective from September 15, 2017, emphasizes the right to manual submission of applications, which the Petitioner claims was not respected.

In a series of petitions concerning the non-granting of refunds, the court addressed three main cases: WP(C) 9161/2018, WP(C) 13881/2018, and WP(C) 194/2019. In WP(C) 9161/2018, the court acknowledged that a refund had been issued, but other aspects such as interest on the refund still needed consideration. In the cases of WP(C) 13881/2018 and WP(C) 194/2019, despite multiple court orders, refunds had not been processed.

On January 11, 2019, the court had given permission to the petitioners to file manual refund applications since two years had not yet passed. Despite this, refunds were still not issued. On March 28, 2019, the court reiterated the order, stating that the petitioners could file their refund applications manually and the authorities could review these applications as per the law.

The petitioner in WP(C) 13881/2018 received an order on March 22, 2019, from the GSTO Ward-84 rejecting the refund application, citing the requirement to file electronically using FORM GST RFD-01. The petitioner’s counsel argued that this order was void as it violated Rule 97A of the CGST rules, which allows for manual filing of applications. It was noted that the officer who rejected the refund application was not aware of this rule.

The court decided to overturn the March 22, 2019, order and instructed the GSTO Ward-84 officer to re-examine the manual refund application. The officer was to meet with the petitioner on April 8, 2019, to review the documents and hear the petitioner’s counsel, then issue a new order on the refund application.

For the petitioner in WP(C) 9161/2018, the court directed the authorized representative to appear before the officer at the same time and date to ensure that a reasoned order on the refund application would be issued and communicated within ten days.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: