GST ITC Refund Can't Be Rejected Merely On Ground Of Non-Supply Of Authenticated Document: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that an input tax credit (ITC) refund cannot be rejected merely on the grounds of the non-supply of authenticated documents.

The bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has observed that the petitioner had uploaded documents; however, the system did not register the documents that were uploaded by the petitioner. The appellate authority records that the petitioner had not submitted any documents, which were submitted along with the reply.

The petitioner/assessee has challenged the order rejecting the petitioner's application for a refund on the input tax credit for the period April 2021 to March 2022.

The order rejected the application seeking a refund primarily on the grounds that there was a mismatch of turnover, excess availment, and misdeclaration of invoice value. There were no supporting documents to disprove the contention that were supplied in response to the show cause notice.

The order recorded that the documents submitted by the petitioner have been considered. However, the petitioner has not submitted any documentary evidence to substantiate the submission about technical error and has not submitted any documents before the appellate authority, which were submitted along with the reply to the show cause notice.

The petitioner contended that the order-in-original erroneously records that a personal hearing was granted to the petitioner; however, no personal hearing was granted. The petitioner had uploaded the relevant documents in response to the show cause notice; however, the order records that documents had not been submitted. Petitioners have, on the grounds of their appeal, specifically taken the plea that there appears to be a technical glitch in the system of the respondents, and the petitioner had uploaded the documents.

The court noted that Section 54(1) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 provides for a period of two years from the relevant date to make an application seeking a refund. The relevant period in issue is April 2021 to March 2022, and as such, the application of the petitioner even today is within the limitations prescribed under Section 54(1).

The court held that the matter needs to be relegated to the concerned authority to re-adjudicate the application of the petitioner by taking into account the documents filed by the petitioner in support of his application for a refund.

The court clarified that in case the authority requires any further documents, it would be open to the authority to call upon the petitioner to furnish additional documents.

Counsel For Petitioner: Rakesh Kumar

Counsel For Respondent: Akshay Amritanshu

Case Title: M/S Mittal Footcare Versus The Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 21

Case No.: W.P.(C) 15518/2023 & CM. APPLS. 62158/2023

Click Here To Read The Order