9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 578 - HC - GSTRefund claim - rejection on the ground of delay - Section 54(1) of the CGST/UPGST Act - HELD THAT - On the fact of the present case, it is found that the refund application of the petitioner could not have been rejected by the respondent no.4 merely on the ground of delay, ignoring the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 10.01.2022 2022 (1) TMI 385 - SC ORDER where it was held that In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. The impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. Matter is remitted back to the respondent no.4 to decide the refund application of the petitioner in accordance with law, by reasoned and speaking order, expeditiously and preferably within six weeks from the date of presentation of copy of the order, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Issues:
Challenge to the validity of certain rules and circulars under GST Acts; Rejection of refund application based on delay; Exclusion of time period for limitation due to Covid pandemic; Quashing of impugned order and remittance for fresh decision. Analysis: The petitioner had challenged the validity of Rule 90(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, and corresponding rules under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, along with a circular issued by the respondent no.2. The petitioner sought relief through various writs, declaring the mentioned provisions ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution and Sections 54 of the CGST and UPGST Acts. However, during the proceedings, the petitioner decided not to press these reliefs, leading to their withdrawal. The core issue arose from the rejection of the petitioner's refund application by the respondent no.4, citing delay in filing. The impugned order stated that the limitation period had expired in September 2020, and even the extended period granted by the department had lapsed on 30.11.2020. The petitioner submitted the refund application on 31.03.2021, which was rejected on grounds of delay. The petitioner argued that the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was excluded for limitation purposes by an order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which the respondent no.4 failed to consider. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 10.01.2022 excluded the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for limitation in all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings due to the Covid pandemic. The Court emphasized the impact of the pandemic on public health and the adversities faced by litigants. In light of this order, the rejection of the petitioner's refund application based solely on delay was deemed inappropriate. Consequently, the High Court held that the impugned order was unsustainable and quashed it. The matter was remitted back to the respondent no.4 for a fresh decision on the petitioner's refund application, emphasizing compliance with the law and providing a reasoned order within six weeks from the date of the High Court's order. The writ petition was disposed of, subject to the mentioned observations.
|
