Order Date – 18 June 2025

Parties: Tarinika & Ors. Vs Commissioner of CGST, Howrah & Anr.

Facts – 

• The Petitioner, Tarinika, has filed a refund application for 2020- 2023 period.
• Petitioner claims that deficiency memos in Form RFD-03 were shown as uploaded on the GST portal, they contained no reasons or documents identifying the deficiencies in the refund claims.

Issue –

• Whether the rejection of refund claims without proper and viewable communication of deficiencies via the common GST portal was valid?

Order – 

• The Single bench of Hon’ble High Court observed that the right of the petitioner to refile an application accrues only when the deficiencies are communicated by the proper officer through the common portal electronically to the petitioner.
• In this case, there appears a communication gap in the officer discharging his duties and the same not being communicated to the petitioner. Though the expression common portal has been used, in reality view screen of the portal that the officer views and the portal that the petitioner no.1 is able to access does not appear to be one and the same. 
• The petitioner cannot be made to suffer without being made aware of the deficiencies, hence the court permitted the petitioner to re-file the refund application in respect of the aforesaid period by treating that the deficiency memo be communicated to the petitioner on this day.