Case: M/s Mittal Footcare v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax (W.P. (C) No. 15518 of 2023 dated January 4, 2024) (Delhi High Court)
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition and held that, the refund cannot be rejected by the Revenue Department merely on the ground of non-supply of authenticated documents. The Revenue Department has the option to call for further clarification or documents as required to satisfy itself that refund is due and payable.
Brief fact
The order-in-original rejected the application seeking refund primarily on the ground that there was a mismatch of turnover, excess availment and misdeclaration of invoice value and no supporting documents to disprove the said contention were supplied in response to the show cause notice.
Further the taxpayer contends that no personal hearing was granted contrary to the observations made in the Order. Also, the taxpayer states that, though taxpayer has uploaded the relevant documents, however, the Order states that, the required documents have not been submitted.
Held
- Held that the Annexure B has been disregarded on the ground that the same has not been signed or authenticated. Annexure B is an annexure to the appeal and in case the appellate authority was of the view that an unauthenticated document had been filed, the same was a curable defect and taxpayer could have been called upon by the appellate authority to certify the said document or produce further material in the form of vouchers, bill etc. to substantiate the said document.
- A refund cannot be rejected merely on the ground of non-supply of authenticated document. In case party is entitled to refund, it is open to the Department to call for further clarification or documents as may be required to satisfy itself that refund is due and payable.
- The matter is remitted to the adjudicating authority to re-adjudicate the application by taking into account the relevant documents available with the taxpayer in support of the application for refund, preferably within a period of eight weeks from today.
Authors comments
The judgment reinforces the principle that procedural defects, like non-submission of documents, should not be the sole reason for rejecting the otherwise eligible claims. The decision underscores the importance of fair consideration and the opportunity for rectification in matters wherein there has been some lapses on the procedural aspects.