Grounds of Writ-The Petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the deficiency memo issued for rejecting the refund of the pre-deposit application filed beyond the two-year limit, argues that the term "may" is directory in nature rather than mandatory. The Petitioner also cited the judgment delivered by the Madras High Court in the case of lenovo India Pvt. Itd. vs. loint Commissioner of GST [2023 TAXONATION 1882 (MADRAS)], where it was similarly held that "may" does not impose a mandatory obligation.
Order-The Court has quashed and set aside the deficiency memo issued for the rejection of the refund of the pre-deposit amount. It ruled that "the respondents' action of rejecting the refund application on the grounds of being time-barred is legally unsustainable." The Court has further directed the Respondents to process the refund within six weeks and pay it to the Petitioner along with applicable interest.
GST Case Law-BLA Infrastructure Private Limited versus The State of Jharkhand
Citation- 2025 TAXONATION 144 (JHARKHAND)
Authors for the blog-
Bhogavalli Mallikarjuna Gupta - bhogavalli.gupta@rsmindia.in
Siddharth Surana - siddharth@rsmindia.in
SUBSCRIBE GST E-LIBRARY (INDIA'S HIGHEST GST CASE LAW DATA)
FOR MORE UPDATE ON GST/ IT JOIN OUR FREE WHATSAPP GROUP BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK https://chat.whatsapp.com/C8VB6F6VHme3A061UDQKhj
