• Notification Date: 09-11-2021
• Notification No: 22/2021-22

GST Refund undeniable for bare existence of Non-Functional Alternate Forum on paper- Telangana High Court

The petitioner, M/s Appario Retail Pvt. Ltd. has been engaged in the business of commercialism of electronic merchandise over e-commerce platform by getting registration below the provisions (of merchandise of products) and repair Tax Laws; that the petitioner procures electronic goods from varied vendors supported forecasted demand of business and maintains large inventory for the aim of making certain timely deliveries; that as a result of purchases laid below it, an awfully high balance of input decrease of GST paid on its purchases is on the market within the electronic credit ledger.

On receiving orders through Electronic Commerce Operator (ECO), the sale is effected through ECO and merchandise is sent to customers; which the liabilities are discharged by the petitioner by debiting the Electronic Credit ledger.

The petitioner contended that because of the maintenance of giant inventory on account of purchases affected to satisfy the forecasted demand, the petitioner invariably has an excess balance of ITC in its electronic credit ledger, that is used for discharge of GST liability, as and once the sale of products is established through ECO, and thus, the quantity maintained by the ECO is deposited with the govt below Section 52 of the CGST Act, as tax collected at supply and mirrored in petitioner’s electronic money ledger remains unutilized; that the same unutilized balance within the petitioner’s electronic money ledger will be claimed as a refund in terms of Section 49(6) scan with Section 54 of the CGST Act and that the same balance quantity within the electronic money ledger is being refunded to the petitioner throughout India wherever its operations prevail as well as within the State of Telangana.

 The division bench of Acting chief judge M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice T. Vinod Kumar dominated that the petitioner cannot be compelled to attend for eternity to agitate its claim seeking a refund of the quantity to that it's entitled to under the statute and additionally, obstruction its funds touching its money flows, just attributable to the existence of (non-functional) alternate forum/remedy on paper, by not invoking the jurisdiction below Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Further, the mere existence of other remedy isn't any bar for invoking the jurisdiction below Article 226 of the Constitution of India, once right to hold on business is being obstructed, leading to violation of basic right as secured below Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.