Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case When the Judge Signs with the Prosecutor, Justice Is Already Compromised: MP High Court Quashes Tainted Medical College Enquiry Strict Rules Of Evidence Do Not Apply To Proceedings Before The Family Court: Kerala High Court Upholds Wife’s Claim For Gold And Money Commission Workers Cannot Claim Status of Civil Servants: Gujarat High Court Declines Regularization of Physically Challenged Case-Paper Operators Non-Wearing of Helmet Had a Direct Nexus with Fatal Head Injuries  : Madras High Court Upholds 25% Contributory Negligence for Helmet Violation Only a ‘Person Aggrieved’ Can Prosecute Defamation – Political Party Must Be Properly Represented: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Rahul Gandhi

Delhi High Court Sets Precedent: Refund Application Cannot Be Ignored Due to Deficiency Memo, Rules in Favor of National Internet Exchange of India

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant decision, the Delhi High Court reiterating that an application for refund cannot be deemed invalid solely based on a deficiency memo issued by the proper officer. The court’s decision came in response to a writ petition filed by the National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI), challenging the rejection of their refund claim of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) by the Department of Trade and Taxes.

Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan delivered the judgment, emphasizing that if an application for refund is complete and accompanied by the necessary documentary evidence, it cannot be ignored even if the proper officer seeks further clarifications or additional documents. The court held that the mere issuance of a deficiency memo does not render the application “non est,” and the taxpayer’s compliance with the prescribed form and manner of filing is sufficient to stop the period of limitation.

The court referred to its earlier decision in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Union of India & Ors., where a similar interpretation was provided. The ruling reaffirmed that Rule 90(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, which deals with deficiencies noted in refund applications, cannot be interpreted to invalidate applications that are otherwise complete and in accordance with the law.

“The present case is covered by the decision in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Union of India & Ors. And thus, it is not necessary to examine the broader challenge to the vires of Rule 90(3) of the CGST Rules or paragraph 12 of the impugned Circular,” stated Mr. Ramachandran, senior standing counsel for the Revenue.

The court allowed NIXI’s petition, setting aside the impugned order rejecting the refund application based on the ground of limitation. The case has now been restored for fresh consideration by the proper officer on its merits.

This judgment holds significance as it clarifies the procedural aspect of refund applications under the GST regime and underscores the principle that an application for refund cannot be dismissed solely due to deficiencies, as long as the prescribed form and documentary evidence are furnished. The decision provides relief to taxpayers by preventing their refund claims from being invalidated on technical grounds, ultimately safeguarding their rights and interests.

Date of Decision: 9 August 2023

NATIONAL INTERNET EXCHANGE OF INDIA  vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 

Latest Legal News