[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rswm Ltd vs Union Of India (2026:Rj-Jd:17657-Db) on 16 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:17657-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2448/2023
RSWM Ltd., Post Box No. 28 Kharigram, Gulabpura Bhilwara.
311021 through Its Authorized Signatory Avinash Bhargava S/o
Shri Mahesh Nath Bhargava Aged 56 Years Working As Chief
Financial Officer R/o E-2/248, Chitrakoot Yojna, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India, Through The Revenue Secretary,
Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block,
New Delhi - 110001
2. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs,
Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, Through
Chairman, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi -
110001
3. Goods And Service Tax Network, Through Chairman,
Worldmark 1 Aerocity, Indira Gandhi International Airport,
New Delhi - 110037
4. The Commissioner, Cgst, Udaipur Commissionerate, 142
B, Hiranmagri, Sector 11, Udaipur, Rajasthan - 313002
5. The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner, CGST, Division F,
11, Azad Nagar, Bhilwara, Rajasthan - 31101
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Narendra Singhvi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajat Arora
Mr. Lucky Rajpurohit
Ms. Himanshi Rajpurohit
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order (Oral)
16/04/2026
Per: Arun Monga, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking
directions to the respondent department for issuance of PMT-03
and re-crediting of Input Tax Credit (hereinafter, "ITC) to the tune
of Rs. 4,37,51,638/-.
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 01:29:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17657-DB] (2 of 5) [CW-2448/2023]
2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner filed refund
claim of ITC for the periods, August, 2017, September, 2017 and
October, 2017, on 19.01.2018 on the common portal. On
23.05.2020, Respondent no. 5 issued 3 show-cause notices
rejecting the refund claim.
2.1 The petitioner did not prefer an appeal against the rejection
order rather informed Respondent no. 5 vide letter dated
26.10.2020, to re-credit the amount of refund claims rejected in
its electronic credit ledger. However, the functionality to re-credit
the amount in the electronic credit ledger was not available on the
common portal.
2.2 Thereafter, a grievance was raised on Centralised Public
Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (hereinafter,
"CPGRAMS") and Commissioner, CGST, raised a ticket on
CBICMITRA on 03.12.2020 which was followed by email on
17.02.2021 but the said problem could not be resolved.
2.3 Thereafter, petitioner wrote various letters dated
24.09.2021, 19.05.2022, 27.07.2022 to the respondent
department for the re-credit of the said amount to the electronic
credit ledger. However, no action has been taken.
2.4 Hence, the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite
continuous follow-ups and multiple representations to
departmental authorities, including GSTN and CBIC, the issue of
re-credit of ITC remains unresolved. It is contended that even
after lodging grievances on CPGRAMS and repeated reminders, no
action has been taken, resulting in blockage of substantial funds
and compelling the petitioner to approach this Court.
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 01:29:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17657-DB] (3 of 5) [CW-2448/2023]
3.1 It is further submitted that the petitioner is statutorily
entitled to re-credit of the ITC debited while filing refund claims, in
terms of the relevant provisions of the CGST Rules. Upon rejection
of the refund claims, the petitioner acquired a vested right to such
re-credit, having also fulfilled all prescribed conditions. The denial
of re-credit solely on account of absence of portal functionality is
arbitrary and unsustainable, as technical limitations cannot
override substantive legal rights, particularly when the
respondents themselves acknowledge the petitioner's entitlement.
3.2 It is further argued that the failure to re-credit the ITC has
resulted in unlawful deprivation of the petitioner's property, in
violation of Article 300A of the Constitution. The ITC, being a
vested right, cannot be withheld merely due to systemic
inefficiencies. Reliance is placed on judicial precedents, including
Pacific Industries Ltd. v. Union of India 1 and Garden Silk
Mills Limited v. Union of India2, to contend that in cases where
the portal does not support statutory compliance, relief must be
granted either through appropriate directions to the authorities or
by permitting manual credit.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent argues that the GST
portal already provides a complete and functional mechanism for
re-credit of ITC in cases where refund claims are rejected,
provided such claims are filed through the proper refund module.
However, since the Petitioner deviated from the prescribed process
and prematurely debited ITC through Form DRC-03, the system
does not support re-credit in such circumstances. It is emphasized
that the Petitioner's actions are not aligned with the approved
1 2022 (61) G.S.T.L. 592 (Raj.)
2 2019 (24) G.S.T.L. 724 (Guj.)
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 01:29:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17657-DB] (4 of 5) [CW-2448/2023]
business process embedded in the GST framework, and therefore,
no fault can be attributed to the Respondents or the GSTN for the
absence of functionality in such an irregular scenario.
5. In view of the aforesaid backdrop, we are of the considered
view that the stand taken by the respondent department stands
conceded, as is evident from the letter dated 01.10.2021
(Annexure-18). The relevant portion thereof is reproduced herein
below:
"4. The claimant vide letter dated 26.10.2020 has requested to
this office to re-credit the rejected amount of Rs.10,26,788/-
(CGST Rs.5,13,394/- + SGST Rs.5,13,394/-) of Rs. 2,62,83,226/-
(CGST Rs.1,31,41,613/- + SGST Rs. 1,31,41,613/-) & of Rs.
1,64,41,624/- (CGST Rs.82,20,812/- + SGST Rs.82,20,812/-). The
Claimant has also undertaken that they have not preferred any
further appeal against the order of Joint Commissioner
(Appeals), Jodhpur and also undertaken and declared that they
would not prefer any further appeal in this matter in future also.
5. In the matter, it has been observed that claimant has filed
refund claims under "any other category" by debiting the ITC of
Rs.10,26,788/-, Rs. 26283226/- and Rs.16441624 through DRC-
03 suo-moto from Electronic credit ledger. ITC debited by the
claimant through DRC-03 in respect of refund claimed under
"any other category", cannot be re-credited to the claimant in
Electronic credit ledger in case of rejection of refund claim as
there is no option available on common portal. Further, GST
portal does not have any kind of functionality vide which refund
sanctioning authority can re-credit the ITC debited through DRC-
03 in the refunds of "any other category". Likewise, option of
issuing PMT-03 for re-crediting ITC in Electronic credit ledger
for inadmissible/ rejected refund claim is not available in the
instant case as is available in the case of ITC accumulated on
account of export of goods without payment of tax.
6. For resolution of the above said issue, this office has
raised a ticket on CBICMITRA on 03.12.2020 which was
followed by email on 17.02.2021 but the said problem could not
be resolved. This office has again raised ticket no.
202110013806754, 202110013806769 and 202110012806761 on
01.10.2021. Due to non availability of option on common portal,
the claimant is yet to receive the re-credit of ITC in his Electronic
Credit Ledger and has been pressing hard through
representations to various forums and also through CPGRAM."
6. In view of the aforesaid, since the Department does not
dispute the petitioner's entitlement to re-credit of the refund
amount of Rs. 4,37,51,638/-, any procedural lapse whether
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 01:29:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17657-DB] (5 of 5) [CW-2448/2023]
attributable to the petitioner or the respondents is insignificant so
long as the entitlement to such re-credit remains undisputed.
7. In view thereof we direct the respondent that the refund of
the aforesaid amount be credited in the electronic credit ledger
maintained qua the petitioner through manual intervention.
8. Needful be done within a period of eight weeks.
9. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed.
10. Pending application(s) also stands disposed of.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J (ARUN MONGA),J
Ashutosh-100
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 01:29:13 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
