9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 1125 - HC - GSTRefund of the IGST paid on the goods supplied to SEZ units - supply would be treated as zero rated supply or not - Section 54 of the CGST Act and Section 16(1) of the CGST Act - HELD THAT - In the peculiar facts of the case, when the petitioners received order rejecting the refund claim in month of November, 2020, the Covid-19 pandemic situation was prevailing. The Hon ble Apex Court, vide order dated 23rd March, 2020 passed in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 2020 (5) TMI 418 - SC ORDER , while exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, extended the period of limitation for filing the Appeal which was further extended from time to time which is evident from the order dated January 10, 2022 passed in Misc. Application No.21 of 2022 in Misc. Application No.665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 2022 (1) TMI 385 - SC ORDER . The period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 stand excluded in computing the period prescribed for limitation. Accordingly, the Appeal filed by the petitioners on 21.04.2021 challenging the rejection of refund claim shall have to be considered within the period of limitation - the matter is remanded back to the respondent No.2- Appellate Authority to decide the same on merits after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners - Petition disposed off.
Issues:
Challenge to order rejecting refund claim under IGST Act and CGST Act, Condonation of delay in filing Appeal, Interpretation of limitation period extension due to Covid-19 pandemic. Challenge to order rejecting refund claim under IGST Act and CGST Act: The petitioners challenged the order rejecting their refund claim under Section 16 of the IGST Act read with Section 54 of the CGST Act. The petitioners, engaged in manufacturing and supply of DG sets, exported goods to an SEZ unit with payment of IGST. The respondent rejected the refund claim citing reasons like IGST not added to taxable amount and lack of SEZ officer's endorsement. The petitioners contended that they paid IGST to the government, filed a refund application, and replied to the show-cause notice with necessary documents. The Appellate Authority rejected the Appeal due to a delay in filing, leading to the petition. Condonation of delay in filing Appeal: The petitioners argued that the delay in filing the Appeal was due to the Covid-19 pandemic situation, relying on the Supreme Court's orders extending limitation periods. They cited the Apex Court's directions on extending limitation periods for judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings due to the pandemic. The respondent contended that the delay was not condonable as per Section 107(4) of the CGST Act and that the Appeal lacked merit. Interpretation of limitation period extension due to Covid-19 pandemic: The Court analyzed the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on limitation periods for legal proceedings. Referring to the Supreme Court's orders extending limitation periods, the Court noted the exclusion of the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for computing limitation. The Court held that the Appeal, filed within the extended limitation period, should be considered without the delay being a bar. Consequently, the Court quashed the Appellate Authority's order rejecting the Appeal and remanded the matter for a decision on merits within twelve weeks. This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the issues involved comprehensively, providing an in-depth understanding of the legal arguments, interpretation of laws, and the Court's decision regarding the challenge to the order, condonation of delay, and the extension of the limitation period due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
|
