9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 331 - HC - GST100% EOU - rejection of refund claim - appeal filed within the time limitation - Section 107 of TNGST Act - HELD THAT - This Court considering the bonafides on the part of the writ petitioner and also taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case including the obtaining factual position that the refund amount claimed in barely Rs.9.42 lakhs, treats this case as a one off matter, making it clear that it will not serve as precedent in all and every such case is inclined to treat 12.07.2022 as the date of appeal. It is to be noted that the case of the writ petitioner qua refund of a little over 9.42 lakhs is they have made deemed export as supply has been made to a 100% EOU but the refund order dated 06.04.2022 made by the first respondent now proceeds on the basis that it is a wrong ITC claim. This Court refrains itself from expressing any opinion or view on this aspect of the matter as it would now be in the hands of the second respondent/Appellate Authority to decide the matter on its own merits and in accordance with law. The writ petitioner shall refile the second refund application (already filed) as appeal (in appeal format) before second respondent - Writ Petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim by the respondent based on supplies made to 100% 'EOU'. 2. Extension of limitation period for filing an appeal under the TN-GST Act. 3. Consideration of a second refund application filed within the condonable period. Analysis: Issue 1: Rejection of Refund Claim The writ petition concerns the rejection of a refund claim by the respondent, citing supplies made to a 100% 'EOU' as the reason for deeming the claim report. The petitioner sought remedy through an appeal under the TN-GST Act, which had a prescribed time limit of three months and a condonable time limit of one month. The petitioner filed a second refund application within the condonable period, raising questions about the rejection based on the supplies made to 'EOU'. Issue 2: Extension of Limitation Period The court considered the possibility of extending the limitation period in light of relevant case laws, including the Glaxo Smith case and the G.Rukmani Ganesan case. The unique aspect of the case was the second refund application filed within the condonable period, leading to a discussion on whether the limitation period could be extended or expanded. Issue 3: Second Refund Application The court acknowledged the bonafides of the petitioner and the relatively small refund amount claimed. It treated the case as a one-off matter, not setting a precedent for similar cases. The court decided to treat the date of the second refund application as the date of appeal, impleading the Deputy Commissioner as the second respondent. The court refrained from expressing an opinion on the nature of the claim, leaving it to the Appellate Authority to decide on its merits and in accordance with the law. In conclusion, the court directed the petitioner to refile the second refund application as an appeal before the Appellate Authority, construing the appeal to have been presented on the date of the second refund application. The Appellate Authority was instructed to deal with the appeal promptly and dispose of it within six weeks. The writ petition was disposed of with these directives, and no costs were awarded. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the court and the decisions made regarding the rejection of the refund claim, extension of the limitation period, and treatment of the second refund application.
|
