FORM GST RFD-03 - Deficiency memo requiring a corrected fresh application
Scrutiny identifies missing prescribed refund statements before acknowledgement of a complete claim.
Responsible actor: The proper officer communicates specified completeness defects. Provision: Rule 90(3); rule 93(1).
Official source and completed example
Download official blank source extract PDF Download completed fictional sample PDF
The sample is a flowed model of the prescribed fields and selected paragraphs, not an official issued PDF. Names, references and facts are fictional. It contains no signature, stamp, DSC or simulated approval.
July 2026 claim; current rules 90(3)/93(1) checked 21 October 2026. Form source dated 1 January 2022.
Worked facts and completed entries
Independent Branch D: Aster files a July 2026 unutilised-credit refund claim for CGST 60000 plus SGST 60000 on 1 September. Its uploaded export-statement file omits the shipping-bill numbers/dates for the selected goods-export invoices. The officer communicates this specific deficiency on 8 September. The model fresh application on 15 September supplies the missing statement and uses a new reference; the memo is not a final merits rejection. All names, references and proceeding events are fictional; references are not actual portal AR Ns or issued orders.
Reference, date and addressee
| Reference | ILLUSTRATION-RFD03-D-2026-0908 — fictional, not an actual issued reference |
|---|---|
| Date | 8 September 2026 |
| GSTIN | 29AABCA0000A1ZT |
| Name | Aster Learning Supplies Private Limited (fictional) |
| Address | 12 Learning Park, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560001 (fictional) |
| Original application / filing | ILLUSTRATION-RFD-D-2026-0901 /1 September 2026 |
| Subject | Deficiencies in July 2026 export-without-payment refund application |
Deficiencies noticed
| Sr | Prescribed evidence missing | Precise rectification |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rule 89(2)(b) statement lacks shipping-bill numbers/dates against invoices ILLUSTRATION-EXP-D01 and D02 | Provide complete invoice-to-shipping-bill statement, including dates, supported by actual export records. |
| Other reason | None in this model | No additional unstated defect is assumed. |
Operative advice
File a fresh refund application after rectifying the stated deficiencies. This RFD-03 does not sanction a refund, impose a tax demand or finally reject substantive entitlement. The statutory period from the original RFD-01 filing until communication of this RFD-03 is excluded from the two-year limitation for that corrected fresh claim under rule 90(3).
Rectification and ledger continuation
| Original claim / credit debit | CGST 60000; SGST 60000; total 120000 |
|---|---|
| Rule 93(1) recredit after deficiency | CGST 60000 and SGST 60000 back to the credit ledger; no bank refund |
| Corrected fresh filing assumed | 15 September 2026 / ILLUSTRATION-RFD-D-FRESH-2026-0915 |
| Corrected statement | Invoices D01/D02 each mapped to its actual shipment evidence in the assumed case file |
| Fresh claim and debit | CGST 60000 and SGST 60000 debited again only for the fresh claim; original and fresh claims must not both remain live |
Officer execution block
| Place / date | Bengaluru / 8 September 2026 |
|---|---|
| Officer name / designation | N. Prakash, Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru (fictional; unsigned teaching role) |
| Office address | Illustration Central Tax Office,12 Learning Park, Bengaluru560001; fictional |
| Signature / DSC | Not executed; no official approval represented |
How this form moves the matter forward
- List the particular missing/incomplete prescribed evidence rather than issuing a generic rejection.
- Rectify and file a fresh application, applying the rule 90(3) limitation exclusion to the actual dates.
- Reconcile recredit of the original ITC debit and any fresh claim debit; acknowledgement and merits sanction follow separately.
Evidence supporting these entries
- RFD-01 and the actual filing/acknowledgement record
- Invoice/credit-ledger reconciliation and applicable export evidence
- Actual notices, replies, hearings and sanction/payment records
- Original incomplete statement, RFD-03 service record and corrected shipping-bill statement
Period and legal consequences
RFD-03 is a completeness-stage memo. Rule 93(1) recredits the original credit debit on deficiency; the appeal-finality/no-appeal undertaking condition for merits rejection under rule 93(2) is not imported into that deficiency recredit.
Primary source and exact locator
Official notified form source: PDF pages 284-284; printed pages 278-278.
CGST Act and government-hosted Act and Rules compilation - Rule 90(3); rule 93(1). Source and example revision: 21 October 2026.
Questions answered by this example
Who prepares or issues this form?
The proper officer communicates specified completeness defects. Scrutiny identifies missing prescribed refund statements before acknowledgement of a complete claim.
Can this sample be filed or treated as an issued document?
No. It is a completed fictional teaching example. Use the notified form and the authenticated portal/proceeding record for an actual matter. The example contains no executed signature or official approval.
What must reconcile before the next step?
RFD-01 and the actual filing/acknowledgement record; Invoice/credit-ledger reconciliation and applicable export evidence; Actual notices, replies, hearings and sanction/payment records.