Order Date – 22 December 2023

Parties: M/s Sethi Sons (India) Vs Assistant Commissioner and Ors

Facts –

• The Petitioner, M/s Sethi Sons (India), had exported eight consignments during the period from July 2017 to March 2018.
• The petitioner attempted to file refund for the month of July and August, 2017 on 14.05.2018 and 08.08.2018, however due to a technical error encountered on the GST portal he could not complete the online filing of this application. Later the petitioner filed a complain and made severalattemp to submit mnually. However, the concerned officer declined to accept the same.
• The petitioner made a consolidated application (in FORM GST RFD-01) for the refund of unutilised ITC exports effected during the financial year 2017-18 on 05.02.2022, and was rejected on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of two years from the relevant date being the date of export of the consignments.

Issue –

• Whether the petitioner did make an application within the prescribed period?

Order –

• The Divisional Bench of Hon’ble High Court observed that there is no cavil that the petitioner was required to make an application for refund under Sub-section (1) of Section 54 of the CGST Act within two years of the goods leaving India or crossing its territorial frontiers.
• In the present case, there is no dispute that the petitioner had attempted to upload its application for refund but could not do so on account of technical glitches. It is difficult to accept that the petitioner’s legitimate right to seek refund could be foreclosed on account of such technical glitches.
• There is no dispute that the petitioner had attempted to file an application for refund on the GST portal twice but its application could not be uploaded on account of technical glitches. It is not disputed that the petitioner had also made a complaint and a ticket for the same was also raised.
• In the peculiar facts of the case, It was unable to accept that the petitioner’s claim for refund is required to be denied on the ground of delay. Hence it was directed the proper officer to examine the petitioner’s claim for refund and process the same, if it is found that the petitioner is entitled to the same.