Authority was directed to consider the Manual Refund Application as per Rule 97A.

Case Details:

Issue- In the above case, the petitioner was engaged in export of services and therefore entitled for refund under section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent had earlier sanctioned the refund claim of the petitioner for the exports for the month of July and thereafter transfered the file of the petitioner to the another respondent for the refund claims filed for the succeeding period i.e., August 2017 and September 2017 and from August 2018 to January 2019. The refund claims were rejected on the ground that the petitioner had not satisfied the requirements of section 2 sub-section (6)(V) of IGST Act, 2017 and therefore orders came to be passed. However, the petitioner was unable to upload the refund applications due to limitation for filing refund claim had expired under section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017. the petitioner has filed a representation dated 10-12-2021 asking the respondents to accept the manual declarations for the purpose of refund claim.

Held- It was held that Since Rule 97A contains a non-obstante clause, it is intended to override rules 89 to 97 of the CGST Rules forming part of Chapter X. The plain and simple construction of rule 97A is that despite rule 89 providing for electronic filing of applications for refund on the common portal, in respect of any process or procedure prescribed in Chapter X any reference to electronic filing of an application on the common portal shall, in respect of that process or procedure, include manual filing of the said application. If indeed the argument of respondent that no application in any form other than online can be received and processed is accepted, rule 97A would be a dead letter and rendered redundant. Rule 97A cannot be construed in a manner so as to defeat the purpose of legislation. We, therefore, conclude that the impugned circular would certainly be applicable to all applications filed electronically on the common portal, but the impugned circular cannot affect or control the statutory rule, i.e., rule 97A of the CGST Rules or derogate from it. Though the petitioner is asking for the two alternate reliefs, Hon’ble Court was inclined to dispose this writ petition by directing the respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 10-12-2021 without expressing any opinion on merits. The representation of the petitioner may also be examined in the light of the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the above noted case within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to state, the petitioners right to agitate the issue in case adverse orders are passed stands preserved in accordance with law.