CASE SUMMARY:M/S AMN LIFE PVT. LTD. vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
Application No. CWP No.7919 of 2022
Court: High
Court of Himachal Pradesh
Date:
10.06.2024
Facts
of the Case:
The decision in the case of M/s AMN Life Pvt. Ltd. vs.
Union of India & others (CWP No.7919 of 2022) delivered by the High
Court of Himachal Pradesh on June 10, 2024, involves the petitioner challenging
the order dated July 28, 2022, issued by the 5th respondent. This order
declined to consider the petitioner's applications for GST refunds for the
financial years 2017-2018, 2018-2019, and 2020-2021. The court ruled in favor
of the petitioner, setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter
back to the 5th respondent for reconsideration. The court also awarded costs of
Rs. 10,000 to the petitioner.
Petitioner's Contentions:
·
The petitioner informed the
respondent on May 30, 2022, that it got registered with GST in October 2020
after acquiring the business from M/s Sozin Flora Pharma LLP. Eligible ITC was
transferred to it by filing ITC-02.
·
The petitioner was unable to file
GST refund applications online due to its GST registration being effective from
October 2020 and therefore applied manually.
Submission By Respondent:
·
The application form RFD-01 had not
been filed.
·
The petitioner was not registered
under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 during the relevant period.
·
Refund applications must be filed
electronically, and manual applications would not be entertained.
Court's Observations:
·
The court noted that Rule 97A of the
Central Goods and Services Tax Rules permits manual filing of applications,
which the 5th respondent ignored by relying on a circular dated November 18,
2019.
·
The circular cannot override Rule
97A. The rejection of the refund applications on the grounds of not filing
RFD-01 or manual submission was incorrect.
·
Section 54(1) of the CGST Act allows
any person to make a refund application, irrespective of their registration
status during the relevant period.
·
Rule 41, dealing with the transfer
of credit on amalgamation or merger, should have been considered by the 5th
respondent.
Court's Decision:
·
The writ petition was allowed, and
the impugned order dated July 28, 2022, was set aside.
·
The matter was remitted to the 5th
respondent for fresh consideration on merits within four weeks.
·
The court awarded costs of Rs.
10,000 to the petitioner.
This case underscores the precedence of statutory rules over
departmental circulars and reinforces the rights of businesses in seeking
refunds under the GST framework.
