Page 61 - GSTL_27th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 4

2020 ]JIAN INTERNATIONAL v. COMMISSIONER OF DELHI GOODS AND SERVICES TAX 387
tion for its completeness and where the application is found to be complete
in terms of sub-rule (2), (3) and (4) of rule 89, an acknowledgement in
FORM GST RFD-02 shall be made available to the applicant through the
common portal electronically, clearly indicating the date of filing of the
claim for refund and the time period specified in sub-section (7) of section
54 shall be counted from such date of filing.
(3) Where any deficiencies are noticed, the proper officer shall communi-
cate the deficiencies to the applicant in FORM GST RFD-03 through the
common portal electronically, requiring him to file a fresh refund applica-
tion after rectification of such deficiencies.”
7. In the event of default or inaction to carry out the said activities
within the stipulated period, consequences like payment of interest are stipulat-
ed in Section 56 of CGST/DGST Act.
8. Admittedly, till date the petitioner’s refund application dated 4th
November, 2019 has not been processed. As neither any acknowledgment in
FORM GST RFD-02 has been issued nor any deficiency memo has been issued in
RFD-03 within timeline of fifteen days, the refund application would be pre-
sumed to be complete in all respects in accordance with sub-rule (2), (3) and (4)
of Rule 89 of CGST/DGST Rules.
9. To allow the respondent to issue a deficiency memo today would
amount to enabling the Respondent to process the refund application beyond the
statutory timelines as provided under Rule 90 of the CGST Rules, referred above.
This could then also be construed as rejection of the petitioner’s initial applica-
tion for refund as the petitioner would thereafter have to file a fresh refund ap-
plication after rectifying the alleged deficiencies. This would not only delay the
petitioner’s right to seek refund, but also impair petitioner’s right to claim inter-
est from the relevant date of filing of the original application for refund as pro-
vided under the Rules.
10. Moreover, the respondent’s prayer to raise a deficiency memo is a
hyper-technical plea as admittedly, all the relevant documents have been an-
nexed with the present writ petition and the respondent is satisfied about their
authenticity.
11. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the respondent has lost
the right to point out any deficiency, in the petitioner’s refund application, at this
belated stage.
12. Accordingly, this Court directs the respondent to pay to the peti-
tioner the refund along with interest in accordance with law within two weeks.
13. With the aforesaid directions, present writ petition stands disposed
of.
14. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order
be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.

_______

GST LAW TIMES  27th August 2020  61