The Delhi High Court has ruled that denying an input tax credit (ITC) refund solely due to the absence of authenticated documents is not permissible.
Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Ravinder Dudeja highlighted that although the petitioner had uploaded the necessary documents, the system failed to register them. Despite submitting the documents along with a response, the appellate authority incorrectly noted a lack of document submission.
The petitioner, seeking a refund on input tax credit spanning April 2021 to March 2022, contested the decision rejecting their refund application.
The refund application was turned down primarily due to discrepancies in turnover, excessive claims, and misreported invoice values. Despite responding to the show cause notice with supporting documents, there was no evidence provided to refute these claims.
While the order acknowledged the petitioner’s submitted documents, it noted the absence of evidence to support claims of technical errors. Additionally, documents previously uploaded alongside the response to the notice were reportedly not presented before the appellate authority.
Read Also: Security of GSTN Data Government’s Centre Priority/Concern
The petitioner argued that the original order inaccurately stated the granting of a personal hearing, which they never received. They highlighted the contradiction between their document uploads and the order’s assertion of non-submission. In their appeal, they emphasized a possible technical issue within the respondent’s system, stressing their prior document uploads.
The court highlighted that according to Section 54(1) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, a two-year window is allowed from the relevant date to seek a refund. Given that the pertinent period spans April 2021 to March 2022, the petitioner’s current application falls within this statutory timeframe.
Deciding that the matter should return to the relevant authority, the court emphasized the necessity for a fresh evaluation of the petitioner’s refund application, considering the documents already submitted in support of it.
Furthermore, the court clarified that if the authority requires more documentation, they are permitted to request additional materials from the petitioner.
| Case Title | M/S Mittal Footcare Vs. The Commissioner of CGST |
| Citation | W.P.(C) 15518/2023 & CM. APPLS. 62158/2023 |
| Date | 04.01.2024 |
| For the Petitioner | Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate. |
| For the Respondents | Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms. Anjali Kumari, Advocate. |
| Delhi High Court | Read Order |
