Case Title, Court & Metadata
Case: M/s Shri Shyam Footwear v. Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax & Anr.
Court: High Court of Delhi
Petition No.: W.P.(C) 5845/2022
Date of Judgment: 31 January 2023
Category: Refund – Unutilised Input Tax Credit (ITC)
Relevant Provisions:
-
Section 54, CGST Act, 2017 – Refund of tax
-
Rule 89, CGST Rules – Application for refund
-
Procedural requirement: Form GST RFD-01, Annexure-B (Statement of Invoices)
Facts of the Case (Paras 1–9)
The petitioner, a registered supplier, filed a refund application in Form GST RFD-01 on 07.04.2021 seeking refund of unutilised ITC for Oct–Dec 2020, duly acknowledged with ARN AA0704210185797 (para 3) . A deficiency notice dated 22.05.2021 alleged that the petitioner had incorrectly filled Column 7 (Category of input supplies) in Annexure-B, classifying supplies merely as “Goods” rather than specifying “Inputs/Input Services/Capital Goods” (para 4).
The petitioner filed a detailed reply in Form GST RFD-09 on 07.06.2021, accepting the inadvertent clerical error and filing a revised Annexure-B correcting the classification (para 5). Although the reply was uploaded and visible on the portal, the revised annexure did not appear to have reflected on the system (para 6). Despite having the corrected document, the adjudicating authority rejected the refund on 17.06.2021 without considering the rectification (para 7). The first appellate authority also rejected the appeal on 09.02.2022, again on the ground that the corrected Annexure-B had not been uploaded at the time of filing the refund (para 9).
Questions / Legal Issues (Arising from Paras 2–10)
-
Whether a technical/clerical error in Annexure-B of Form GST RFD-01, later rectified with complete information, can be a ground to reject refund of unutilised ITC.
-
Whether the adjudicating and appellate authorities acted lawfully when they ignored the petitioner’s rectified annexure filed on 07.06.2021.
-
Whether refund can be denied solely because the corrected annexure did not reflect on the GST portal despite being duly filed with the reply.
Court’s Observations (Paras 10–14)
The Court noted that both the adjudicating and appellate authorities failed to consider the rectified Annexure-B filed along with the petitioner’s reply dated 07.06.2021 (para 10). The Court emphasised that the authorities were required to examine the corrected information and process the refund in accordance with law instead of mechanically relying on the initial error (para 11). It held that a taxpayer cannot be penalised for an inadvertent and rectifiable mistake, especially where the corrected document was duly furnished (para 11).
The Court stated that the case must be examined afresh on merits, and the revised annexure must be considered (para 12). The petitioner must also be allowed to furnish a fresh copy of the rectified annexure (para 13). The Court further mandated that the refund be processed within four weeks, and if the authority contemplates rejection again, a proper opportunity of hearing must be granted (para 14).
Judgment / Verdict (Paras 12–15)
The High Court set aside the orders dated 17.06.2021 (refund rejection) and 09.02.2022 (appeal rejection), and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority directing:
-
Consideration of the petitioner’s reply dated 07.06.2021 and rectified Annexure-B.
-
Permission for petitioner to submit a fresh corrected annexure.
-
Refund application to be processed within four weeks strictly in accordance with law.
-
Authority must grant a personal hearing before any proposed rejection.
The writ petition was allowed in these terms (para 15).
Summary of Cited / Referred Cases (Tabular Form)
(The judgment does not cite any external precedents; therefore, the case table contains only “None Cited.”)
| Sl. No. | Case Name | Citation | Issue | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | None cited in the judgment | — | — | — |
Between Fine Lines (Practical Takeaways)
The ruling affirms that refund claims cannot be rejected for minor clerical or portal-related deficiencies when the taxpayer has duly corrected the error. Refund adjudication must focus on substantive eligibility, not procedural rigidity. Authorities must consider all documents submitted, irrespective of whether the GST portal reflects them perfectly. This judgment strengthens the principle that procedural lapses cannot defeat legitimate tax refunds.
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.”
