2026-VIL-1213-GUJ
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-1213-GUJ

SGST High Court Cases

GST - Refund - Relevant date under Explanation 2(d) to Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 where tax becomes refundable consequent to appellate order and summary in Form GST APL-04 was uploaded later - Petitioners deposited tax and penalty under Section 129 for goods in transit, the demand was set aside by the Appellate Authority which directed refund, the physical copy of the order was handed over to the authorised person soon thereafter – The summary in Form GST APL-04 was uploaded on the portal over two years later, and the refund application filed the next day was rejected as barred by limitation - Petitioners contended that the order was communicated only on the date of uploading of the summary - Respondent contended that the relevant date is the date of communication of the order and that Form GST APL-04 is only a summary - Whether the date of uploading of Form GST APL-04 is the relevant date - HELD - Under Explanation 2(d), the relevant date is the date of communication of the order of the Appellate Authority, which was the date of handing over the physical copy. Rule 113 shows that Form GST APL-04 is only a summary of the order indicating the final amount of demand confirmed. Neither Rule 89 nor Form GST RFD-01 requires a taxpayer to await uploading of the summary, as the form provides for refund on account of an order including an appeal, and a taxpayer holding a physical copy could file the application without waiting - The relevant date is ordinarily the date of communication of the physical order and the contention of the Petitioners on this aspect is not rejected - Whether refund directed by the Appellate Authority can be denied solely on the ground that the application was filed beyond two years under Section 54(1) - Appellate Authority set aside the demand and directed refund of the amount deposited, but the amount remained unrefunded and the refund application was rejected as time-barred, the summary of the order having been uploaded only after departmental instructions issued later - Whether the claim can be defeated by the procedural requirement relating to the relevant date - HELD - Once the demand is set aside and refund is directed, continued retention of the amount raises a serious question of legality, as no tax can be collected except by authority of law, a refund is property protected by Article 300A, and denial of refund affects the right under Article 19(1)(g). Procedural law is a servant and not a tyrant, and procedural requirements should facilitate and not frustrate substantive rights - The State is under a Constitutional obligation to act fairly, and the authorities are expected to ensure timely implementation of appellate orders, including by intimating the taxpayer to resort to the statutory process, as retention of the amount would indirectly revive the set aside order. The word ‘may’ in Section 54(1) does not make limitation optional, but a rigid interpretation cannot validate an illegal action - In the peculiar circumstances, the date of uploading of Form GST APL-04 is treated as the relevant date for the limited purpose of this case, the refund application is held to be within two years, the orders rejecting it are quashed - The Respondents are directed to process the application, with liberty to file a fresh offline application if the portal does not permit – The petition is allowed - Interest on delayed refund under Section 56 of the CGST Act, 2017 where refund arises from an appellate order - Petitioners claimed interest at the higher rate under the proviso to Section 56 but restricted their claim to the lower rate, although they did not file the refund application on receipt of the physical appellate order and the prayers did not specify rate or date - Whether interest is payable on the refund and from which date - HELD - The proviso to Section 56 provides for interest at a higher rate where refund arising from an order of the Appellate Authority which has attained finality is not made within sixty days from receipt of the application filed consequent to such order, and thus interest is linked to the filing of the application. Since the Petitioners were supposed to file the application on receipt of the physical copy of the order and did not do so, they are not entitled to interest from the date of that order. Treating the date of application as the date of upload of the summary, the sixty days would end on the date computed under the proviso, and in order to balance equities and since the Petitioners themselves restricted their claim - Petitioners held entitled to interest at the lower rate from the date fixed by the Court till actual payment, and if the refund is not made within twelve weeks, interest at the higher rate on the refund thereafter.
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Dr. G. Gokul Kishore

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

57th GST Council Decisions...
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Security-Code
New Code?

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Security-Code
New Code?

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?