The Delhi High Court has cleared the air on GST refund re-credit and held that PMT-03 is not always mandatory.
The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta has observed that PMT-03 arises only when the refund rejection involves an actual ITC debit. If the refund debit has not taken place, no PMT-03 is needed; the officer can adjudicate the refund without portal intervention.
The Petitioner/assessee runs a sole proprietorship firm by the name M/s Safecon Lifesciences and is engaged in exports of Veterinary medicines. The Petitioner was tagged as ‘Risky Exporter” by the Directorate General of Analytics and Risk Management (‘DGARM), leading to the withholding of their Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) refunds, which in turn resulted non-processing of the refund applications filed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner is registered with Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax (UGST) Commissionerate at Rudrapur.
In one of the applications made by the Petitioner, an order was passed by the concerned Deputy Commissioner, Rudrapur vide which the refund application of the Petitioner was rejected. In order to enable the Petitioner to have the re-crediting of the IGST which has already been paid by him by way of adjustments in the Input Tax Credit, an undertaking is required to be submitted.
The Petitioner upon rejection of the refund application, has two options either to file an appeal or to file an undertaking online for issuance of PMT-03 for the rejected amount
The Petitioner contended that it was willing to submit the said undertaking as per the order passed by the State GST office. However, the Petitioner is unable to file the PMT-03 for the rejected amount due to the fact that it does not have access to the concerned portal. Thus, the present petition has been filed praying for access to the portal.
A perusal of the above makes it clear that the Petitioner was given the liberty to approach the concerned GST Officer on 14th May 2025 in this regard. The GST was directed to render assistance for uploading the PMT-3 form.
On 10th July 2025, further time was sought by the Respondent – CGST Department in view of the fact that Rule 86 of the CGST Rules does not contemplate the procedure directed by the Court. Vide the said order, the concerned GST Officer was directed to remain present on the next date of hearing.
On the previous date of hearing i.e., 8th August, 2025, the Assistant Manager (Legal) GST Network was present in the Court. He, along with the CGST Department submitted that Rule 86(3) does not apply to the Petitioner and, therefore, Rule 68(4) was not triggered for PMT-03.
The stand of the GST Network officer was that since the claim amount was never originally debited from the ledger of the Petitioner, PMT-03 is not applicable at all. Therefore, it is the submission of ld. Counsel for the CGST Department that PMT-03 need not be uploaded in this case. Therefore, the refund can now be adjudicated by the GST officer in Uttarakhand on the premise that PMT-03 need not be filed by the Petitioner. However, at the request of the Petitioner the matter was adjourned to a later date.
The GST department contended that the PMT-03 need not be uploaded as this is not a case where the debit has taken place in terms of Rule 89 in the electronic credit ledger. This is the stand of the GSTIN after consulting with the GST Policy Wing as well.
The short question is as to how the Petitioner’s refund (recredit) is to be credited.
The court noted that IGST was deposited by the Petitioner at the time of export and GSTR-01 and 03 reflect the said debit. The Petitioner is being made to approach the Uttarakhand GST Department and GSTIN between whom the issue is not getting resolved. Under these circumstances, it is deemed appropriate to implead GST State Commissioner, Rudraprayag, Uttarakhand as a party in the present proceedings. The said department can either engage a lawyer, who can appear before the Court or can also appear virtually in order to assist the Court in refund.
The court listed the matter on 31st October, 2025.
Case Details
Case Title: Ankur Agarwal Versus CBIC
Case No.: W.P.(C) 5414/2025
Date: 21.08.2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Shivashish Karnani
Counsel For Respondent: Aakarsh Srivastava
Read More: Writ on Refund of Unconstitutional GST Levy on Ocean Freight Admitted: Bombay High Court
