Shri Shyam Footwear VS Commissioner Of Central Goods

The petitioner has filed a petition challenging two specific orders: one dated February 9, 2022, issued by respondent No. 2, and another dated June 17, 2021, issued by respondent No. 3. The primary contention of the petitioner is centered around the release of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) totaling ₹4,28,400/-, comprising ₹1,84,800/- under CGST and ₹2,43,600/- under SGST. The petitioner seeks directions from the court to compel the respondents to release this unutilized ITC amount.

The petitioner has filed a petition challenging two specific orders: one dated February 9, 2022, issued by respondent No. 2, and another dated June 17, 2021, issued by respondent No. 3. The primary contention of the petitioner is to secure the release of unutilised Input Tax Credit amounting to ₹4,28,400/- (comprising ₹1,84,800/- CGST and ₹2,43,600/- SGST). The petitioner had previously submitted a refund application using form RFD-01, accompanied by all requisite documentation as mandated.

In the case with Neutral Citation Number 2023/DHC/000843 and W.P.(C) 5845/2022, the petitioner filed an application on 07.04.2021 under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) and its relevant rules. The application sought a refund for the period from October 2020 to December 2020, with online submission confirmed by receipt No. AA0704210185797. Despite this submission, the petitioner’s refund request was not granted.

In Neutral Citation Number 2023/DHC/000843, W.P.(C) 5845/2022, the Delhi High Court reviewed an application filed under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) for a refund covering the period from October 2020 to December 2020. The petitioner submitted the application on 07.04.2021, acknowledged by receipt No. AA0704210185797. However, the refund request was initially rejected by the authorities.

The rejection was based on a notice dated 22.05.2021, which pointed out deficiencies in the application. Specifically, Annexure-B, detailing the invoices required for refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC), was found to have incomplete or incorrect information in column 7 regarding the category of input supplies (goods, services, or capital goods). The authorities deemed this omission as grounds for the application’s defectiveness.

The petitioner subsequently approached the Delhi High Court seeking relief against the rejection of their refund application. The case underscores procedural adherence to the CGST Act’s requirements for refund claims and the judicial review of administrative decisions concerning tax refunds.

In W.P.(C) 5845/2022, the petitioner sought a refund under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for the period from October 2020 to December 2020. The application, submitted on 07.04.2021 with receipt No. AA0704210185797, was initially rejected by the tax authority. The rejection notice dated 22.05.2021 cited incomplete information in Annexure-B regarding the category of input supplies.

Responding to this, the petitioner submitted a revised Annexure in FORM-GSTRFD-09 on 07.06.2021, acknowledging the error and correcting Column No. 7 as requested. Despite uploading this revised information, it did not reflect on the portal.

Subsequently, on 17.06.2021, the petitioner received an order rejecting the refund application, seemingly without considering the rectified Annexure submitted on 07.06.2021. The petitioner contends that their correction was duly uploaded but not reflected in the portal, leading to the rejection of their claim.

This case involves issues of procedural compliance with GST refund regulations and discrepancies in portal updates affecting the petitioner’s refund claim.

In this case, the petitioner, having filed a Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5845 of 2022, contested the rejection of their appeal by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner had originally submitted information, including Annexure B, which they later claimed was incorrect and subsequently rectified. Despite this rectification, their appeal for refund was dismissed on the grounds that Annexure B was incomplete at the time of the initial application.

The court found that the authorities had failed to consider the corrected information submitted by the petitioner when rejecting their refund claim. Emphasizing that the petitioner should not be penalized for a genuine error that was rectified, the court set aside the orders of June 17, 2021, and February 9, 2022. They remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to reconsider the petitioner’s response to the Show Cause Notice dated May 22, 2021, and to adjudicate the refund claim anew.

Additionally, the court allowed the petitioner to submit a fresh revised annexure to the Adjudicating Authority and directed that the refund application be processed within four weeks from the date of the court’s order.

This summary encapsulates the main points and decisions of the court regarding the petitioner’s appeal for refund.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: