The Allahabad High Court has called upon the Commissioner of State Tax to issue appropriate administrative instructions enabling taxpayers and their successors to claim GST refunds even where a cancelled registration and the death of the authorised signatory prevent access to the GST portal.
The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi made the observation after a surviving partner was compelled to approach it because the GST portal did not permit him to complete e-KYC or file a refund application in Form GST RFD-01.
The Bench disposed of the petition after being informed that the technical hurdle had been resolved, the e-KYC process had been completed, and the refund claims had been entertained.
BUY NOW: 1000+ Landmark GST Judgments (2017–2026)
The business was originally established and operated by Ashok Kumar. Its GST registration was cancelled on February 22, 2019, with effect from January 21, 2019. Ashok Kumar subsequently died on December 11, 2022.
Following his death, his son, who was the surviving partner of the business, sought a refund of ₹4.14 lakh lying as an excess deposit with the tax authorities.
However, the surviving partner could not submit the refund application because the GST registration had already been cancelled. The GST portal also did not permit the addition of the surviving partner as a promoter or partner or allow e-KYC to be completed in his favour.
Since the person recorded as the authorised signatory had died, Aadhaar authentication through the existing portal credentials was also not possible.
The petitioner consequently approached the High Court seeking directions to the authorities to add the surviving partner’s name to the GST registration or otherwise enable the filing of Form GST RFD-01.
The petitioner also sought the release of ₹4.14 lakh with applicable interest and a direction for the disposal of a representation submitted on May 28, 2026.
During an earlier hearing, GSTN informed the High Court that an amendment to the details of a partner or promoter was ordinarily not permitted on the portal once the GST registration had been cancelled.
It was further explained that Aadhaar authentication could not be completed because the authorised signatory recorded on the portal was deceased.
Considering the peculiar circumstances, GSTN suggested that the petitioner could attempt to initiate e-KYC by uploading the necessary documents on the portal. Once the KYC process was completed, the petitioner could file the refund application electronically.
GSTN also proposed an alternative technical solution involving a backend data correction. Although such a correction could not ordinarily be made directly through the portal, it could be attempted under the directions of the High Court to enable the refund application.
Taking note of the proposed solution, the Court, through its order dated September 1, 2026, permitted the petitioner to apply for e-KYC.
The High Court also recognised that the proposed portal-based solution might not work. It therefore directed the State authorities to consider how the amount lying in excess deposit could be refunded outside the common GST portal if the portal continued to prevent the petitioner from registering the refund claim.
The Court asked the Standing Counsel to obtain written instructions from the Commissioner of State Tax concerning the mechanism through which the refund could be released outside the common portal.
This direction ensured that a genuine refund claim would not remain indefinitely blocked merely because the electronic system was incapable of accommodating the unusual situation arising from the cancellation of registration and the death of the authorised signatory.
The State informed the High Court that the petitioner’s e-KYC had been successfully completed. The refund application had also been entertained and allowed.
According to the instructions placed before the Court, ₹3.85 lakh was refunded to the petitioner after deducting the applicable late fee from the excess deposit of ₹4.14 lakh.
The authorities further informed the Court that another refund order for ₹21,62,742 had also been issued.
Counsel appearing for the petitioner acknowledged the State’s statement and confirmed that the refund-related developments were correct.
In view of the completion of e-KYC and the sanction of the refunds, the High Court held that the dispute no longer survived and disposed of the writ petition.
The Bench observed that the Commissioner of State Tax may issue appropriate administrative instructions for the future so that other claimants facing comparable circumstances can apply for refunds without first approaching the High Court.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
