Case Title: M/s AMN Life Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & others
Court: High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla
Petition No.: CWP No. 7919 of 2022
Date of Judgment: 10.06.2024
Category of Dispute: Refund of GST – Inverted Duty Structure
Relevant Provisions: Section 54(1), Section 54(3), Rule 41 & Rule 97A of CGST Rules, Circular dated 18.11.2019
Facts (Para 1–2)
The petitioner, M/s AMN Life Pvt. Ltd., acquired the business undertaking of M/s Sozin Flora Pharma LLP and got GST registration only on 21.10.2020. It sought refunds for ITC accumulation under the “Inverted Duty Structure” for FY 2017–18, 2018–19 and 2020–21. Since its registration was effective from October 2020, it could not file applications electronically and instead applied manually through emails dated 30.05.2022. The refund was rejected on three grounds: (a) absence of RFD-01 form, (b) lack of registration during relevant period, and (c) mandatory electronic filing requirement.
Questions for Determination (Para 1–2)
-
Whether refund applications can be rejected solely because they were filed manually instead of electronically.
-
Whether the petitioner, not being registered during relevant periods, could still claim refund of unutilized ITC post-acquisition.
Court’s Observations (Para 3–7)
-
The Court noted that Rule 97A of CGST Rules permits manual filing where electronic filing is not possible. The respondent wrongly relied only on Circular dated 18.11.2019, which cannot override statutory rules.
-
It cited Laxmi Organic Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (Bom HC, 2021) and Ayana Pharma Ltd. v. Union of India (Guj HC, 2022), which held that manual filing under Rule 97A is valid and authorities cannot insist only on electronic filing.
-
On the issue of registration, the Court emphasized that Section 54(1) permits “any person” to apply for refund. Hence, refund cannot be denied merely because the applicant was not registered during the earlier relevant periods.
-
Further, Rule 41 allows transfer of ITC upon amalgamation/merger, which squarely applied since Sozin’s ITC was transferred to the petitioner through ITC-02.
Judgment (Para 8–9)
The Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order dated 28.07.2022, and remitted the matter to the refund authority for fresh consideration on merits within four weeks. Additionally, it directed the respondent to pay ₹10,000 as costs to the petitioner.
Table of Referred Cases
| Case | Court & Citation | Principle Laid Down |
|---|---|---|
| Laxmi Organic Industries Ltd. v. UOI | Bombay HC, 2021-TIOL-2248-HC-MUM-GST | Rule 97A permits manual refund filing; circulars cannot override statutory rules. |
| Ayana Pharma Ltd. v. UOI | Gujarat HC, 2022-TIOL-715-HC-AHM-GST | Refund applications filed manually must be accepted; electronic filing not mandatory in all cases. |
Between Fine Lines
For industry players, this judgment is significant. It clarifies that technicalities like electronic filing or timing of registration cannot defeat substantive refund rights. Companies acquiring other entities can claim refunds of accumulated ITC, provided ITC is validly transferred under Rule 41. Importantly, departmental circulars cannot negate statutory rules, ensuring taxpayers’ rights are preserved.
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.”
