GST
TRT-2025-
Rajasthan High Court
Date:-10-04-23
In:-
Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:-
Parties: Medicamen Biotech Limited Vs Union of India, The Commissioner (Appeals), Central Goods and Services Tax, Jaipur, The Assistant Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax, Bhiwadi.
Facts –
- The Petitioner, Medicamen Biotech Limited, filed refund application in Form RFD-01 under the category “supply made to SEZ unit/Developer with payment of Tax” for the period July, 2020 in terms of the provisions of Section 54, sub-section (3)(ii) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 89, sub-rule (5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.
- The Additional Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Jaipur has held that the claim of refund and the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority allowing the refund is not legal and correct alleging that the declarations filed by the petitioner were not signed by the proper person and also uploaded in PDF files as un-signed scanned copy.
Issue –
- Whether the declaration is required to be signed in physical mode?
Order –
- The Divisional Bench of Hon’ble High Court observed that a conjoint reading of the provisions contained in Rule 26 and Rule 89 of the CGST Rules of 2017 leaves no manner of doubt that as far as requirement of law is concerned, it does not mandate that even after having authenticated a document in the manner prescribed under Rule 26 of the CGST Rules of 2017, insofar as declarations are concerned, they are also required to be signed in physical mode before being scanned and uploaded through electronic submission along with the application for refund.
- However, if declarations, as in the present case, are digitally authenticated in the manner prescribed under Rule 26 of the CGST Rules of 2017, non-submission of physically signed and scanned declarations may only be an irregularity, but not an illegality. It was also observed that declarations made by the petitioner have not been found to be factually incorrect.
- Therefore, impugned order rejecting claim of refund and depriving the petitioner of the refund to which it may be entitled, without any authority of law, cannot be allowed to be sustained. Administrative instructions cannot bar claim of refund if the legal requirements as contained in the law are fulfilled.
Download Case Law
