2023 (2) TMI 649 - HC - GST

Rejection of refund claim - rejection on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of two years as stipulated under Section 54(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - time limitation. HELD THAT - The learned Counsel appearing for the parties have drawn attention to a notification dated 05.07.2022, whereby the period commencing from 01.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, was directed to be excluded for computing the period of limitation, for filing a refund application under Sections 54 or Section 55 of the Act. It is apparent that the said notification was issued in view of the order passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in IN RE COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION 2021 (3) TMI 497 - SC ORDER . The impugned orders cannot be sustained as the benefit of the relaxation in the period of limitation has not been accorded to the petitioner - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Impugning an order rejecting refund application filed beyond the statutory period under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
2. Appeal against the rejection of the refund application.
3. Exclusion of time period for computing limitation for filing refund application.
4. Compliance with the notification excluding the period for limitation.
5. Direction for processing the petitioner's refund application.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order rejecting their refund application under Section 54(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as filed beyond the two-year limit. The impugned order highlighted the petitioner's adjustments in the refund amount and subsequent rectifications made. The petitioner's appeal to the Appellate Authority was dismissed, affirming the initial order's legality.

The counsels referred to a notification excluding the period from 01.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for computing the limitation period for refund applications under Sections 54 or 55 of the Act. This notification was issued following a Supreme Court order in a relevant case, providing a relaxation in the limitation period.

Considering the notification's impact, the Court held that the impugned orders could not stand as the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the extended limitation period. Consequently, the respondents were directed to promptly process the petitioner's refund application in compliance with the law. The petition was disposed of with this direction, ensuring the petitioner's right to have their application processed in light of the extended limitation period.