Manual consolidated refund application permitted for export ITC where online refiling facility was unavailable.

By | October 21, 2026
0 Comment
Manual consolidated refund application permitted for export ITC where online refiling facility was unavailable.

Issue

  1. Whether an exporter who withdrew online refund applications for accumulated Input Tax Credit (ITC) and got the credit re-credited to the electronic credit ledger can be permitted to file a manual consolidated refund application under Rule 97A due to the absence of an online facility for consolidated refiling.
  2. Whether the Revenue can refuse processing a manual consolidated refund application on grounds of system limitations, re-credited ITC, and inordinate delay without examining the claim on merits.

Facts

  • Export & Original Refund Claim: The petitioner, engaged in the export of goods, filed online refund applications for the period from December 2017 to February 2018 claiming refund of accumulated Input Tax Credit (ITC) on inward supplies used for exports.
  • Withdrawal & Re-Credit: The petitioner withdrew the online applications via a written request. Pursuant to this, the Nodal Officer issued Form GST RFD-06 recording the withdrawals, and the ITC was re-credited to the petitioner’s electronic credit ledger in December 2018.
  • Consolidated Claim & System Constraint: The petitioner sought to file one single consolidated refund application for the entire period. However, the GST portal lacked an online functionality to allow such consolidated refiling after withdrawal.
  • Revenue’s Opposition: The respondents opposed the request, citing the bar on refiling after withdrawal and re-credit, system inability to regenerate Application Reference Numbers (ARNs), and inordinate delay in seeking the refund.

Decision

  • Permission for Manual Filing: Considering the non-availability of an online facility on the portal for filing a consolidated refund application, the petitioner was permitted to file a manual consolidated refund application under Rule 97A within two weeks. (In favour of assessee)
  • Direction for Consideration on Merits: The respondents were directed to consider and decide the manual application on its merits in accordance with law within six weeks of receipt, after affording a personal hearing. (In favour of assessee)
  • Preservation of Contentions: The High Court left the aspect of delay and its legal consequences open, making no binding observation on maintainability or limitation, and disposed of the petition keeping all contentions open for both sides. (In favour of assessee)

Key Takeaways

  • Role of Rule 97A for Manual Filings: Rule 97A of the CGST Rules permits manual filing and processing of applications where technical constraints or system glitches on the common portal prevent assessees from submitting valid online claims.
  • Relief Against System Limitations: Departmental portals and technical limitations (such as the inability to generate new ARNs for consolidated claims post-withdrawal) cannot operate as an absolute bar against a taxpayer’s right to seek statutory refunds.
  • Procedural Flexibility for Exports: Tax authorities must entertain manual applications in zero-rated export supply matters when electronic systems do not support specific processing workflows like consolidated multi-period refilings.
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
PCK Cotton (P.) Ltd.
v.
Union of India
M. S. Karnik and Sandesh D. Patil, JJ.
WRIT PETITION NO. 603 OF 2025
AUGUST  31, 2026
Bharat Raichandani, Adv. for the Petitioner. Ram Ochani, Ms. Megha Bajoria, Ms. Khushi P. Agarwal and Ms. Jyoti Chavan, Addl. G. P. for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
2. Learned Addl.G.P vehemently opposed the Petition submitting that there is no provision for filing an application for refund as such a course is clearly barred by the stand taken by the Petitioner himself vide a communication dated 29th August, 2018 at page no.39. It is the submission of learned Addl.G.P that the Petitioner himself has withdrawn the refund applications filed for December, 2017 to February 2018 and requested for issuance of an Order for recrediting of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on account of refund application. It is submitted that once such a stand has been taken by the Petitioner, it is then not open for the Petitioner to file the refund application for the very said period.
3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the application made by the Petitioner for withdrawal of the refund applications was not unconditional but the Petitioner wanted to file consolidated refund application for a period of three months i.e. December, 2017 to February, 2018. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court in Laxmi Organic Industries Ltd. v. Union of India  [2022] 89 GST 463/63 GSTL 452 (Bombay)/[(2021) SCC OnLine Bom 10539] in support of his contentions so far as Rule 97A for manual filing and process of the application is concerned.
4. Learned Addl.G.P vehemently submitted that the Petitioner has initially made an online application for grant of refund on 18 th July, 2018, 26th July, 2018 and 1st August, 2018 for the monthly periods December, 2017, January, 2018 and February, 2018 respectively towards accumulated ITC on inward supplies used for export of goods. Thereafter, the Petitioner by letter dated 29th August, 2018 withdrew all the refund applications for the reasons best known to it and requested to re-credit the ITC to credit ledger. Accordingly, the Nodal Officer issued Form RFD-06 for withdrawal of refund applications on the system. Therefore, there is no question of regenerating the earlier ARNs as the ITC refunded is already recredited to the Petitioner’s ECL on 7th December, 2018 for the periods December, 2017 to February, 2018 respectively.
5. It is submitted by learned Addl.G.P that the present Petition is filed after a period of more than six and a half years from the impugned period i.e. FY-2017-2018. As regards the delay, the Petitioner is trying to take the shelter of filing of Appeal as he was pursuing the wrong remedy, however, the Appeal was filed in August, 2022 against the adjudication Order dated 10th May, 2022. Therefore, under the pretext of pursing the wrong remedy, the Petitioner cannot try to revive its stale claim of the period FY-2017-2018 after the period of more than six and a half years.
6. The Petitioner contends that he wants to file a consolidated application and the previous withdrawal was not unconditional. Considering that there is no facility for filing the consolidated application for refund online, the Petitioner is permitted to file such an application manually within a period of two weeks which shall be considered by the Respondents on its own merits and in accordance with law within a period of six weeks thereafter, after hearing the application. It is made clear that, even the aspect of delay in preferring the application and its consequences may be appropriately dealt with by the Respondents. We make no observations on either the maintainability of the application or on delay in filing the application.
7. In view of above and keeping all contentions of the parties open, Writ Petition No.603 of 2025 stands disposed of.