Case: M/s Berlia Enterprises v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
High Court at Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri
WPA 2191 of 2024
Date of Judgment: 07.01.2025
Category: Refund under GST (CESS wrongly deposited)
Relevant Sections: Sections 39(9) & 54(1), CGST Act, 2017
Facts (Paras 1–4, 7)
The petitioner, M/s Berlia Enterprises, was compelled to deposit CESS for FY 2017-18 on demand by the tax authority. Later, it realized that no such liability existed and sought refund in January 2022. The claim was rejected citing time-bar under Section 54(1). A fresh application in 2024 was also denied through deficiency memos, alleging missing documents. The petitioner argued that Section 39(9) and 54(1) are directory, not mandatory, and that rejection orders must be uploaded on the portal to allow an appeal.
Dispute / Questions (Paras 4–5, 7–8)
The central issue was whether the petitioner’s refund claim, despite delay, could be lawfully rejected through deficiency memos without a reasoned and uploaded order, thereby depriving the petitioner of the statutory right of appeal.
Observations (Paras 6–10)
The Court analyzed Sections 39(9) and 54(1), noting that the legislature has set cut-off dates for corrections and refunds. However, since the petitioner claimed the CESS was wrongly deposited due to clerical error (placing SGST figures in the CESS column), the authority was bound to examine the claim. Importantly, the deficiency memo under challenge was not accompanied by a formal rejection order on the GST portal, depriving the petitioner of appellate recourse. The Court held that reasons must be assigned, and orders must be uploaded to preserve the right of appeal.
Judgment (Paras 11–13)
The High Court quashed the deficiency memo dated 21.02.2024 and directed the Deputy Commissioner (WBGST) to reconsider the refund application dated 05.02.2024 after granting a hearing, pass a reasoned order, and upload it on the GST portal. The Court clarified it had not decided the refund entitlement on merits, leaving it to the authority.
Cases Referred – Summary Table
| Case Name | Citation / Petition | Ratio Decidendi |
|---|---|---|
| M/s Berlia Enterprises v. State of WB | WPA 2191 of 2024 | Deficiency memo quashed; refund application to be reconsidered with reasoned order uploaded for appellate remedy |
Between Fine Lines
This judgment reinforces that refund rejections cannot be issued casually through deficiency memos. Authorities must pass and upload reasoned orders so that taxpayers can pursue statutory appeals. For industry, it highlights that procedural lapses by the department cannot deprive businesses of appellate remedies even if refund claims are time-barred.
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.”
