9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 1166 - Commissioner - GSTRefund claim - time limitation - whether the refund application filed by the appellant is time barred by the period of limitations in terms of Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017? - HELD THAT - The instant refund application was filed by the appellant on the ground of excess tax payment made by him and it was arised due to not reporting of credit note in GSTR-3B mistakenly and wrongly/erroneously paid the tax on cancelled invoices during the period 2017-18 by filing of GSTR-3B - other remedies are available in the Section 34(2) and Section 39(9) of CGST Act, 2017 but the appellant failed to opt the same and applied the instant refund application on 15-5-2020. The refund application has been rejected by the adjudicating authority by the impugned order on being time barred issue in terms of Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017. There is a settled law that if the statutory provisions are available in the relevant Act, there is no need to draw the inference by applying/interpreting the other statutory provision. In the instant matter the appellant has taken incorrectly recourse of Limitation Act or other Laws by placing reliance of it. The appellant s contention that the relevant date should be taken in the instant case as the date of filing of annual return is not correct/acceptable - In the instant case the appellant filed the refund application on 15-5-2020 for the tax period July, 2017 to March, 2018 which is clearly beyond the two years from the relevant date. The refund claim pertaining to the month of February, 2018 to March, 2018 cannot be disputed on barred by the limitation and contended that the time limit has been extended to 31-8-2020 in terms of Notification No. 35/2020-Central Tax, dated 3-4-2020 as amended by Notification No. 55/2020-Central Tax, dated 27-6-2020 - the appellant did not clarify the date of payment of tax for the month of February, 2018 in the said submission and there is no disputed amount mentioned for the month of March, 2018. The refund application of the appellant is barred by the time limitation in terms of Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017 - Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the refund application filed by the appellant is time-barred by the period of limitations in terms of Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Time-barred Refund Application: The core issue in this case is whether the refund application filed by the appellant is time-barred under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017. The appellant, engaged in trading computer products and maintenance contracts, filed a refund application for ?58,188/- on 15-5-2020, citing excess payment made mistakenly while filing GSTR-3B for the period July 2017 to March 2018. The adjudicating authority issued a show cause notice on 20-5-2020, stating that the refund claim was liable to be rejected on the grounds that the appellant failed to correct their GSTR-3B returns for FY 2017-18 before filing the GSTR-3B return for September 2018. Additionally, the refund application was filed beyond the two-year limitation period from the relevant date, as per Section 54(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Consequently, the refund claim was rejected on 11-5-2020 for being time-barred. 2. Appellant's Arguments: The appellant argued that the mistakes in GSTR-3B returns were noticed while filing the Annual Return for FY 2017-18 on 5-12-2019 and rectified accordingly. They contended that the relevant date for the refund claim should be taken from the date of filing the Annual Return, i.e., 5-12-2019, and thus the time period for filing the refund application should expire on 5-12-2021. They further argued that the limitation period should not apply to cases of excess payment made by mistake, drawing inferences from the Service Tax Act and citing various judicial precedents. 3. Legal Provisions and Analysis: The relevant statutory provisions under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017, stipulate that any person claiming a refund must make an application before the expiry of two years from the relevant date. The "relevant date" is defined in sub-section (14) of Section 54, which includes various scenarios such as the date of export, the date of payment of tax, and other specific cases. The adjudicating authority found that the appellant failed to opt for the remedies available under Section 34(2) and Section 39(9) of the CGST Act, 2017, and instead applied for a refund on 15-5-2020, which was beyond the two-year limitation period from the relevant date. The appellant's reliance on the Limitation Act, 1963, and other judicial decisions was deemed incorrect as the statutory provisions of Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017, are clear and specific. 4. Additional Submission: The appellant also argued that the refund claim for February and March 2018 should not be time-barred, citing Notification No. 35/2020-Central Tax and Notification No. 55/2020-Central Tax, which extended certain time limits due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the adjudicating authority found that the appellant did not clarify the date of payment of tax for February 2018 and that there was no disputed amount for March 2018. Even under the extended time limits, the refund claim was still time-barred. Conclusion: The appeal was rejected, and the impugned order was upheld on the grounds that the refund application was indeed time-barred under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017. The appellant's contentions regarding the relevant date and the applicability of the Limitation Act were not accepted, and the statutory provisions of the CGST Act were deemed clear and unambiguous in this regard.
|
