FORM GST RFD-08 - Notice proposing partial rejection of a refund
Merits scrutiny identifies a specific potentially inadmissible part of the acknowledged claim.
Responsible actor: The proper officer states the proposed inadmissibility and provides a reply/hearing opportunity. Provision: Rule 92(3); section 54; rule 89(4).
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 89(4)/92(3) checked 21 October 2026. Form source dated 1 January 2022.
Worked facts and completed entries
Branch B: Aster’s July 2026 claim 120000 contains 18000 capital-goods ITC. The officer serves the proposal on 8 September 2026, inviting RFD-09 within fifteen days of receipt and a22 September hearing. The proposed rejection is 18000, not the entire 120000. No final rejection, recovery order or bank payment is created by this notice. All names, references and proceeding events are fictional; references are not actual portal AR Ns or issued orders.
Reference, date and addressee
| Reference | ILLUSTRATION-RFD08-B-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) |
| Acknowledgement | ILLUSTRATION-RFD02-B-2026-0905 /5 September 2026 |
| Application / filing | ILLUSTRATION-RFD-B-2026-0901 /1 September 2026 |
| Service date | 8 September 2026 |
Reasons and proposed inadmissible amount
| Sr | Specific reason | Proposed inadmissible amount INR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Packing-machine invoice ILLUSTRATION-CAP-B-2026-0710 dated 10 July 2026 carries capital-goods ITC, outside rule 89(4) Net ITC. | Central9000 + State9000 = total 18000; Integrated/Cess0 |
| 2 / other | No other proposed inadmissibility in this model | 0 |
Show-cause direction
Show cause why the claimed refund should not be rejected to the extent INR 18000 for the stated reason. Furnish reply in FORM GST RFD-09 within fifteen days of receipt:the model receipt 8 September makes 23 September 2026 the fifteen-day date. Appear for personal hearing on 22 September 2026 at 11:00 before the fictional proper officer at the stated illustration office. The hearing is an opportunity, not a pre-decided rejection.
Non-response paragraph and amount boundary
If no reply is furnished within the stipulated time or the hearing is not attended, the matter may be decided ex parte on available records and merits. The remaining INR 102000 is subject to verification, not rejected merely because the INR 18000 issue is raised. Final findings belong in RFD-06 after considering the response; no penalty or tax-demand amount is asserted in this refund notice.
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
- Record the invoice, legal exclusion, affected tax heads and proposed amount precisely.
- Serve RFD-08, allow fifteen days from receipt for RFD-09 and give opportunity of hearing.
- Consider evidence before final RFD-06; any recovery of an excess provisional payment would require its applicable separate legal process.
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
- Specific capital invoice/register and notice service evidence
Period and legal consequences
A deficiency memo RFD-03 asks for a corrected fresh filing; RFD-08 instead proposes merits rejection in the existing claim. The fifteen-day reply clock runs from receipt, not automatically from the typed issue date.
Primary source and exact locator
Official notified form source: PDF pages 292-292; printed pages 286-286.
CGST Act and government-hosted Act and Rules compilation - Rule 92(3); section 54; rule 89(4). Source and example revision: 21 October 2026.
Questions answered by this example
Who prepares or issues this form?
The proper officer states the proposed inadmissibility and provides a reply/hearing opportunity. Merits scrutiny identifies a specific potentially inadmissible part of the acknowledged 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.