For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on GST
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our GST Library

Though non-submission of refund application along with the declarations as required under the law would certainly be illegal and that may, in appropriate case, entail rejection of the application, however, if declarations, as in the present case, are digitally authenticated in the manner prescribed under Rule 26 of the CGST Rules of 2017, non-submission of physically signed and scanned declarations may only be an irregularity, but not an illegality. We have also taken into consideration that declarations made by the petitioner have not been found to be factually incorrect.

Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017— Refund — Signing of documents – The petitioner filed refund application under the category “supply made to SEZ unit/Developer with payment of Tax” for the period July, 2020. The Adjudicating Authority sanctioned refund and credited it. The said order was reviewed and the department filed appeal on the ground that the requisite declarations and undertakings as per Master Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST dated 18.11.2019 was not duly signed. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the documents including the declarations and undertakings were digitally signed. However, even though there is no requirement of the rule that it should be separately signed in physical mode also. The court observed that a conjoint reading of the provisions contained in Rule 26 and Rule 89 leaves no manner of doubt that as far as requirement of law is concerned, it does not mandate that even after having authenticated a document in the manner prescribed under Rule 26, they are also required to be signed in physical mode before being scanned and uploaded through electronic submission along with the application for refund. If declarations, are digitally authenticated in the manner prescribed under Rule 26 , non-submission of physically signed and scanned declarations may only be an irregularity, but not an illegality.

Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court set aside the order dated 20.09.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority and revived order dated 14.12.2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority.

Though non-submission of refund application along with the declarations as required under the law would certainly be illegal and that may, in appropriate case, entail rejection of the application, however, if declarations, as in the present case, are digitally authenticated in the manner prescribed under Rule 26 of the CGST Rules of 2017, non-submission of physically signed and scanned declarations may only be an irregularity, but not an illegality. We have also taken into consideration that declarations made by the petitioner have not been found to be factually incorrect.

Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court set aside the order dated 20.09.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority and revived order dated 14.12.2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority.