The petitioner seeks to assail the order dated 22.11.2019 passed by respondent No.5 contained in Annexure P/1 to the writ petition whereby respondent Nos.4 and 5 rejected the claim for refund of tax filed by the petitioner.

2. The facts of the case in nutshell are that the petitioner’s company which is registered under the provisions of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was regularly filing return, however, the petitioner had to bear the burden of the tax. As the petitioner has not passed the incidence of tax to any other person, thus, resultantly the petitioner moved an application for refund of excess tax paid in the State of Madhya Pradesh. However, the revenue issued a deficiency memo dated 14.09.2019 by which the petitioner herein was required to rectify the deficiency within the stipulated period and since the petitioner could not rectify the deficiency, the petitioner’s application for refund dated 23.08.2019 was rejected vide impugned order dated 22.11.2019 (Annexure P/1).

3. This Court after hearing the counsel for parties on 21.03.2022 directed the learned counsel for revenue to file an affidavit of gazetted officer to the effect as to whether the deficiency memo was served upon the petitioner or not. Pursuant to which, the respondents filed a covering memo dated 26.04.2022 along with the communication dated 31.03.2022 to the Post Master, Head Post Office, T.T. Nagar, Bhopal, containing a request to supply the acknowledgment of the post through which the deficiency memo was sent to the present petitioner. However, the post office has intimated the respondents that records pertaining to consignment are not available.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the order impugned is bad in the eye of law inasmuch as no opportunity to rectify the defect was afforded to the present petitioner. The counsel further submits that the petitioner’s application for refund was dated 23.08.2019 and as per the statutory provisions contained in Rule 90, the application was required to be scrutinized within a period of 15 days and in the event of any deficiency, those were required to be informed to the present petitioner as per Rule 90 (2) of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. He further submits that firstly the deficiency were not pointed out within the statutory period of 15 days which finds mention in Rule 90 (2) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and secondly the deficiency memo itself was not communicated to the present petitioner.

5. During the course of argument, the rival parties are at consensus that if the petitioner makes a fresh application for refund of excess tax paid by the present petitioner, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law afresh.

6. Hence, in view of the consensus arrived at between the parties, the order impugned dated 22.11.2019 contained in Annexure P/1 is quashed. The petitioner is granted liberty to move an application afresh for refund of excess tax within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Such application on being filed, the respondent shall deal with the same in accordance with law and pass order afresh. It is needless to emphasise that if the respondents find any deficiency in the application, the same be communicated to the petitioner and if the petitioner rectifies the deficiency, the application will be decided in accordance with law.

7. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.