2022 (8) TMI 397 - HC - GST

Refund claim - time limitation - Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - In view of the fact that the amounts qua which the refund claims were lodged have already been remitted, consequential directions need not be issued. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
Extension of limitation for filing refund application under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Extension of limitation for filing refund application under Section 54 of the Act
The writ petition challenged the Order-in-Appeal dated 27.12.2021, which allowed the appeal of the respondents on the grounds that the refund claims lodged by the petitioner were beyond the prescribed time limit under Section 54 of the Act. During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel relied on the orders passed by the Supreme Court regarding the extension of limitation. The counsel for the petitioner highlighted a notification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes (CBIC) dated 05.07.2022, which excluded the period from March 1, 2020, to February 28, 2022, for the computation of the period of limitation for filing refund applications under Section 54 of the Act. The counsel for the respondents also confirmed this position. Consequently, the Order-in-Appeal was set aside based on this development, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly. Since the amounts for which the refund claims were lodged had already been remitted, no further consequential directions were deemed necessary. The Registry was directed to scan and upload the notification dated 05.07.2022 for record-keeping purposes.

This judgment primarily revolved around the extension of the limitation period for filing refund applications under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner successfully argued for the application of the extended limitation period based on a notification issued by the Government of India, leading to the setting aside of the Order-in-Appeal that had rejected the refund claims as time-barred. The court's decision was based on the formal remedy provided by the notification, which clarified the exclusion of a specific period for the computation of the limitation period. The counsel for both parties acknowledged this development, resulting in the disposal of the writ petition in favor of the petitioner.