2021 (5) TMI 936 - Commissioner - GST

Refund claim of excess tax paid - time limitation - refund claims were liable to be rejected on the grounds hit by limitation of time limit as the appellant has filed refund claims after expiry of 2 years from the relevant dates - also the refund claim was filed in the category of excess payment of tax and excess payment of tax falls under the phrase any other amount paid as prescribed under sub-section (1) of Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - It is clear from the provision of Section 54(1) that any application for refund for any amount paid under CGST Act, 2017 has to be filed within two years from the relevant date. In the instant case, relevant date is the date of filing of GSTR 3B return. The appellant has never made any concerted efforts for rectification of errors made while filing their FORM GSTR-3B nor any corroborative evidence regarding the above has been provided whereas, sufficient period of time was made available to the appellant for rectification of errors through various circulars and guidelines issued from time to time. Moreover, in the present case, the appellant has confessed himself that the excess amount of tax has been paid inadvertently due to mistake of their staff and the mistake has been committed by the appellant himself not by the department. The adjudicating authority while passing the Orders in Original has taken the relevant date for refund claims i.e. the GSTR-3B filing date as per Section 54(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 for counting the limitation period of two year and on this basis the adjudicating authority has held that the refund claims filed by the appellant is barred by limitation. The refund claims were required to be filed within two years from the relevant date (i.e. the GSTR-3B filing date) but the appellant has failed to do so. There are no reason to interfere in the impugned orders passed by the adjudicating authority - refund claims had been correctly rejected on the grounds as hit by limitation as per Section 54(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Time limit for filing refund claims under Section 54(1) of the CGST Act, 2017.
2. Characterization of the excess amount paid as tax or otherwise.
3. Applicability of the principle of "ejusdem generis."
4. Mechanism for rectifying errors in GSTR-3B returns.
5. Interpretation of statutory provisions and precedents.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Time Limit for Filing Refund Claims:
The appellant filed refund claims for excess tax paid for July, September, and October 2017. The adjudicating authority rejected these claims, citing that they were filed beyond the two-year time limit from the relevant dates (GSTR-3B filing dates) as per Section 54(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The appellant argued that the excess amount paid does not partake the character of tax and thus should not be subjected to the time limit prescribed under Section 54(1).

2. Characterization of the Excess Amount Paid:
The appellant contended that the excess amount paid was due to an inadvertent mistake and does not constitute tax liability. They argued that the definition of "relevant date" under Section 54 does not apply since the excess amount does not partake the character of tax. The appellant further argued that the excess amount should be considered under the phrase "any other amount paid," which does not fall under the time limit for tax refunds.

3. Applicability of the Principle of "Ejusdem Generis":
The appellant invoked the principle of "ejusdem generis" to argue that the phrase "any other amount paid" in Section 54(1) should be read along with "refund of any tax and interest." They contended that "any other amount paid" should be interpreted as amounts in the nature of tax, thus excluding their case from the time limit prescribed under Section 54(1).

4. Mechanism for Rectifying Errors in GSTR-3B Returns:
The appellant argued that the GST portal does not allow for the revision of GSTR-3B returns, which led to their inability to rectify the excess payment. They cited Section 39(9) of the CGST Act, which provides for rectification of errors in returns but noted that this provision does not apply to GSTR-3B. They referenced the case of Bharti Airtel Limited, where the court held that the petitioner could not be deprived of benefits due to the non-operationalization of statutory forms by the department.

5. Interpretation of Statutory Provisions and Precedents:
The appellant cited various judgments to support their interpretation that the excess amount paid does not constitute tax and thus should not be subjected to the time limit under Section 54(1). They argued that the penalty should not be imposed where statutory provisions are open to interpretation. However, the adjudicating authority found these precedents not applicable to the present case due to differing facts.

Conclusion:
The adjudicating authority upheld the rejection of the refund claims, stating that the appellant failed to file within the prescribed two-year limit from the relevant dates (GSTR-3B filing dates). The authority emphasized that the excess amount paid, being categorized as "any other amount paid," falls under the time limit for tax refunds as per Section 54(1). The appellant's arguments regarding the principle of "ejusdem generis" and the inability to revise GSTR-3B were not accepted. The authority concluded that the refund claims were correctly rejected on grounds of limitation as per Section 54(1) of the CGST Act, 2017.

← Previous Next →