Rectified Refund Application Under Rule 90(3) is Not Time-barred | HC

Case Details: Global Health Ltd. v. Union of India - [2023] 156 taxmann.com 375 (Punjab & Haryana)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Ms Ritu Bahri & Mrs Manisha Batra, JJ.
  • Rohit Sud, Adv. for the Petitioner.
  • Vaibhav Gupta for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner is engaged in providing healthcare service. While filing Form GSTR-3B, the petitioner had mistakenly paid the excess amount of SGST under reverse charge mechanism, though the liability for same was comparatively less. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a refund application in terms of the provisions of the GST law.

The department issued deficiency memo in Form GST RFD-03. Notably, as per Rule 90(3) of the CGST Rules, once the proper officer communicates the deficiencies noticed to the applicant in Form GST RFD-03, the applicant is required to file a fresh refund application post rectification of the deficiencies. Thus, in this case, the petitioner also filed the second refund application after rectifying/clarifying the deficiencies raised in the deficiency memo.

The Department rejected the second refund application by holding it as time barred. Thereby, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court placed its reliance on the Delhi High Court order in the case of BSNL v. Union of India [W.P. (C) No. 3550/2023], where it was held that Rule 90(3) of the CGST Rules cannot be applied in a manner that it renders refund application filed by taxpayer as non est. The High Court held that the second application filed by the petitioner, after removing the deficiency, could not have been rejected on the ground that it was time barred.