Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Tarinika & Ors vs Commissioner Of Central Goods & … on 18 June, 2025
18.06.2025
Item No
AD 4
Sayandeep/sb
WPA 1578 of 2025
Tarinika & ors.
versus
Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax, Howrah
CGST and CX Commissionerate & anr.
Ms. Shruti Swaika
Mr. Sreyash Basu Dasgupta
Ms. Sanjukta Das
...For the petitioners
Mr. Uday Sankar Bhattacharya
Mr. Tapan Bhanja
..... for the CGST
1. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia,
praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities to
forthwith process the refund applications filed by the
petitioners in form GSTRFD 01 for the tax periods of
February 2020 to March 2021, April 2021 to December
2021, and January 2022 to September, 2022 and October,
2022 to March, 2023.
2. In support of the petitioners’ case, the petitioners
have disclosed copy of the relevant GSTRFD 01 forms. The
petitioners’ case proceeds on the premise that in the event,
any deficiencies are noticed in the aforesaid applications
ordinarily having regard to the provisions contained in Rule
90(3) of the WBGST/CGST Rules, 2017, the proper officer is
obliged to communicate such deficiencies in form GST
RFD03 through the common portal electronically within 15
days from filing of the application. In the instant case, the
same had not been done. On the contrary, the petitioners
had come to learn though the common portal that though
certain deficiency memos had been uploaded on the
common portal, the said deficiency memos did not identify
2
the reasons and/or the deficiencies for which the
petitioners’ refund application was not allowed. This
prompted the petitioners to ultimately approach this Court.
3. On the aforesaid petition being moved by an order
dated 1st May, 2025, this Court taking note of the case
made out by the petitioners and upon going through the
screenshot from the portal in respect of the deficiency
memo in form RFD 03 was able to ascertain that the
documents column of such form as appearing on the
common portal did not reflect the attachment of any
document whereby the deficiencies could be identified.
4. In such circumstances, this Court had directed the
respondents to file an affidavit disclosing the deficiency
memo as available in the portal of the petitioners and to
annexed copy of the RFD 03 by downloading the same from
the portal in the affidavit so to be filed.
5. On 11th June, 2025 though the respondents had
sought for an extension to file the affidavit in terms of the
order dated 1st May, 2025, the learned advocate for the
petitioners has once again placed before this Court a
photocopy of the screenshot of the portal which reflected
though the deficiency memos in form RFD 03 had been
uploaded, the same did not spell out any reasons so as to
justify the case made out by the petitioners. These
documents appear to have been downloaded from the portal
and the screenshot was taken on 10th June, 2025.
6. Since then the matter has come up for final
consideration. Mr. Bhattacharya learned advocate has
placed before this Court the affidavit and has enclosed the
deficiency memo. From the deficiency memo, it would
3
transpire that the reasons for rejection was that the “Data
provided in Annexures is appeared to be improper and
cannot be verified from ICEGATE”.
7. Incidentally, on being called upon the petitioners have
accessed the portal of the petitioner no.1 in Court today in
the presence of the learned advocate for the respondents as
also the concerned officer instructing the respondents who
was present in Court today. From a view of the portal it
would transpire that no document or reasons identifying
the deficiencies have been attached to the deficiency memo
uploaded on the common portal in form RFD 03. A printout
of the screenshot taken by the petitioners as placed before
this Court is taken on record. To morefully appreciate the
same, such memo is extracted hereinbelow:
8. I find that the right to seek refund is provided for in
Section 54 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter
referred to as the “said Act”). In terms of the provisions
contained in sub-section (4) of Section 54, an application in
Section 54(1) is required to be accompanied with
documents as identified in the said Section and should be
filed in form RFD 01 electronically on the portal. Section
54(1) provides that the claim of refund of any tax or
4
interest, if any, shall be made by making an application
before expiry of 2 years. The procedure for filing of such
application is provided for in Rule 89 of the WBGST/CGST
Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Rules) and
the procedure for issuance of acknowledgement is also
provided for in Rule 90 of the said Rules. However, as per
Rule 90(3) where any deficiencies are noticed, the proper
officer is obliged to communicate the deficiencies to the
applicant in Form RFD-03 through the common portal
electronically requiring him to file afresh after rectification
of such deficiencies. The relevant proviso after sub-Rule 3
of Rule 90 of the said Rules excludes the period between
the date of filing of the relevant application in Form RFD-01
till the date of communication of the deficiencies in Form
RFD -03 by the proper officer while computing the period of
2 years limitation provided for in Section 54(1) of the said
Act. Having regard thereto, in my view the right to re-file an
application only arises when a deficiency is notified to the
registered tax payer. Admittedly, in this case from the
documents available on records, it transpires that though
the proper officer may have identified certain deficiencies,
however, such deficiencies did not reflect in the view site of
the portal. Mr. Bhattacharya, may not be wrong in
contending that the proper officer had duly discharged his
responsibility, however, in my view the right of the
petitioner no. 1 to refile an application accrues only when
the deficiencies are communicated by the proper officer
through the common portal electronically to the petitioner
no.1 . In this case, there appears a communication gap in
the officer discharging his duties and the same not being
5
communicated to the petitioner no.1. Though the
expression common portal has been used, in reality view
screen of the portal that the officer views and the portal
that the petitioner no.1 is able to access does not appear to
be one and the same.
9. Be that as it may, while directing the respondents to
take up this issue with the appropriate authority, and
noting that the petitioner no. 1 cannot be made to suffer
without being made aware of the deficiencies, I permit the
petitioner no.1 to re-file the refund application in respect of
the aforesaid period by treating that the deficiency memo be
communicated to the petitioner on this day.
10. With the above observations and directions, the writ
petition is disposed of.
11. It is made clear that this order is being passed in the
peculiar facts of this case.
12. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be made available to the parties upon
compliance of requisite formalities.
(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)