Three appeals have been filed before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, by M/s. Nirajkumar Prabhudas Patel, Bright Flame International, 142, Tirupati Market, Opposite C.N. Commerce College, Visnagar-384315 [for short – ‘appellant’], holding GSTIN No. 24AQUPP6733FIZF, against three impugned original passed in Form GST RFD-06, all dated 24-1-2018, the details of which are as follows :

2. Briefly, the facts are that the appellant filed three refund claim for refund of ITC on export of goods and services without payment of integrated tax on 1-12-2017. On 5-2-2018, the adjudicating authority communicated the deficiency vide Form GST RED-03 pointing out that the appellant had not provided online printout of FORM GST RFD-01A along with the refund claim. The appellant thereafter vide his letter dated 13-2-2018 and 22-2-2018, informed that due to technical glitches in the system, they were not able to generate the printout of GST RFD-01A. In the meantime, a show cause notice dated 26-2-2018 was issued to the appellant, copy of which is not enclosed with the appeal papers. The adjudicating authority, after granting an acknowledgement of receipt of refund application dated 24-3-2018, vide Form GST RFD-02, issued a rejection order on the same date in Form GST RFD-06, stating that despite being asked vide deficiency memo dated 15-1-2018, 5-2-2018 and show cause notice dated 26-2-2018 to submit Form GST RFD-01A, the appellant in violation of Rule 89(1) and 97A of CGST Rules, 2017, failed to submit the same and therefore his refund application stood rejected. Consequently, vide Form GST PMT-03, dated 24-3-2018, the adjudicating authority ordered re-credit of the amount to credit ledger, on rejection of the refund claims.

3. Feeling aggrieved, by the rejection of the refund claims, the appellant has filed this appeal, raising the following averments :

• that the order rejecting the refund is bad in law;
• that the adjudicating authority had raised the deficiency that online printout of the Form GST RFD-01A was not submitted with the refund claim and that they had vide their reply informed that due to glitches in the system, they were not able to obtain the printout due to problems in portal; that they had submitted a manual copy;
• that it was brought to their notice on 14-4-2018, that the portal was functioning; that they obtained the online printout of the RFD-01A, a copy of which is enclosed.

4. Personal hearing in the matter was held on 25-10-2018 wherein Shri A.R. Patel, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant and reiterated the grounds of appeal and reiterated that the printout was not being generated owing to problems with the system/GST portal.

5. I have gone through the facts of the case, the grounds of appeal and the oral averments raised during the course of personal hearing. I find that the primary question for determination is whether the adjudicating authority was correct in rejecting the refund claim otherwise.

6. On going the impugned orders dated 24-3-2018, I find that in all these cases the refund claims were rejected on account of the fact that the appellant could not submit the GST RFD-01A, which was to be submitted along with the refund claims as per the Circular No. 17/17/2017-GST, dated 15-11-2017. The relevant portion of the said circular, states as follows :

2.3 The application for refund of integrated tax paid on zero-rated supply of goods to a Special Economic Zone developer or a Special Economic Zone unit or in case of zero-rated supply of services (that is, except the cases covered in paragraph 2.2 above and para 2.4 below) is required to be filed in FORM GST RFD-01A (as notified in the CGST Rules vide notification No. 55/2017-Central Tax, dated 15-11-2017) by the supplier on the common portal and a printout of the said form shall be submitted before the jurisdictional proper officer along with all necessary documentary evidences as applicable (as per the details in statement 2 or 4 of Annexure to FORM GST RFD-01), within the time stipulated for filing of such refund under the CGST Act.

2.4 The application for refund of unutilized input tax credit on inputs or input services used in making such zero-rated supplies shall be filed in FORM GST RFD-01A on the common portal and the amount claimed as refund shall get debited in accordance with sub-rule (3) of rule 86 of the CGST Rules from the amount in the electronic credit ledger to the extent of the claim. The common portal shall generate a proof of debit (ARN – Acknowledgement Receipt Number) which would be mentioned in the FORM GST RFD-01A submitted manually, along with the printout of FORM GST RFD-01A to the jurisdictional proper officer, and with all necessary documentary evidences as applicable (as per details in statement 3 or 5 of Annexure to FORM GST RFD-01), within the time stipulated for filing of such refund under the CGST Act.

The appellant has explained the reason for not submitting the same. His correspondence [e-mails] with GSTN and the comm, admin of CGST Gandhinagar Commissionerate enclosed with the appeal papers, clearly shows that there was a problem during the said period in taking printouts of Form GST RFD-01A and that this problem was faced by many of other appellants also. However, subsequent to the rejection of the refund on 14-4-2018, the appellant was able to take a printout of the said GST RFD-01A, which is enclosed with the appeal papers.

7. In view of the foregoing, I find that the primary and only ground on which the refund claims stood rejected was that he was not in a position to provide a printout of GST RFD-01A. This stands corrected since the appellant has provided a printout of the GST RFD-01A generated by the system. Surely, the appellant should not be punished for the problems/glitches in the portal/system. I am also aware of the fact that in terms of Rule 93(2) of the CGST Rules, 2017, the adjudicating authority has re-credited the electronic credit ledger by an order in Form GST PMT-03 on 24-3-2018.

8. In view of the foregoing, the impugned OIOs No. 12/Meh/Final/Ref/2017-18, dated 24-3-2018, 13/Meh/Final/Ref/2017-18, dated 24-3-2018 and 14/Meh/Final/Ref/2017-18, dated 24-3-2018, rejecting the refund claim on the grounds mentioned in the impugned OIOs, is set aside.

9. Lastly, on going through the appeal papers, I find that the appellant had vide his letter dated 13-2-2018, informed the adjudicating authority about the glitches in the system. However, nothing about this is mentioned in the impugned OIO. I am constrained to add that the impugned order has been passed in a mechanical way and the refund denied to the appellant for no fault of his, thereby unnecessarily fastening the interest liability on the department.

10. The appeal filed by the appellant stands disposed of in above terms