Case Title: Tarinika & Ors. v. Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax, Howrah, CGST and CX Commissionerate & Anr.
Court: Calcutta High Court
Petition No.: WPA 1578 of 2025
Date of Judgement: 18 June 2025
Category of Dispute: Refund – Deficiency Memo & Communication on Common Portal
Relevant Sections: Section 54(1) & 54(4) of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017; Rules 89 & 90(3) of the CGST/WBGST Rules, 2017
Facts (Paras 1–3)
The petitioners sought a direction to process refund applications filed in Form GST RFD-01 for the periods from February 2020 to March 2023. They contended that although certain deficiency memos in Form RFD-03 were uploaded on the portal, these did not specify the reasons for rejection as required under Rule 90(3) of the CGST/WBGST Rules. The Court noted that screenshots from the common portal showed no attached documents identifying deficiencies.
Questions before the Court (Paras 2–4)
Whether the petitioners’ right to re-file refund applications under Section 54(1) read with Rule 90(3) could arise when deficiency memos were uploaded but without any specific reasons being communicated through the common portal.
Observations (Paras 6–8)
The Court examined the deficiency memo submitted by the department, which merely stated that “Data provided in Annexures appears improper and cannot be verified from ICEGATE.” It observed that the portal accessible to the officer and that of the taxpayer were not identical, resulting in communication gaps. The Court clarified that the taxpayer’s right to re-file a refund arises only upon electronic communication of specific deficiencies through the common portal. Since no such effective communication occurred, the taxpayer could not be expected to re-file the refund application earlier.
Judgement (Paras 9–10)
The Court held that the petitioner should not suffer due to the system’s communication lapse. It directed that the petitioner no. 1 be permitted to re-file the refund application for the concerned periods, treating the date of this order as the date of communication of the deficiency memo. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, noting that the order applied only to the peculiar facts of this case.
Summary of Cases Referred
| Case | Citation | Verdict / Principle |
|---|---|---|
| No external cases cited | – | Court relied solely on interpretation of Section 54 and Rule 90(3). |
Between Fine Lines
This judgment highlights that refund rights under Section 54 cannot be curtailed merely due to technological lapses on the GST portal. The right to re-file arises only when deficiencies are clearly communicated electronically. Taxpayers facing “blank” deficiency memos may rely on this precedent to seek extension of time and re-submission permission without penalty.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
