9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 494 - HC - GSTRejection of application filed by the Petitioner on the ground of delay - September 2018 to October 2019 - Rule 89(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT - The arguments of the Petitioner, as reflected in the impugned order, are based on the general situation brought about by the Covid-19 pandemic. The implications of the orders passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court is not considered while calculating the limitation period. The appropriate course of action therefore would be to set aside the impugned order, restore the appeal filed by the Petitioner in respect of the refund which has not been granted and direct the Appellate Authority to examine the aspect of limitation on merits afresh in the light of the decision/order passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the Suo Motu Writ Petition. The impugned order dated 29 October 2021 by the Appellate Authority is quashed and set aside, and the Appeal filed by the Petitioner stands restored to file.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the rejection of a refund application by the Sales Tax Officer and the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax based on delay, and the subsequent appeal filed by the Petitioner citing the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the filing timeline. Judgment Summary: Issue 1: Rejection of refund application based on delay The Petitioner, a Private Limited Company engaged in exporting consultation services of embroidery designs, applied for a refund of Rs. 57,80,523/- for services exported under the IGST Act. The Sales Tax Officer rejected the claim for refund due to the majority of invoices being beyond the limitation period. The Petitioner appealed under the MGST Act, contending that the delay was due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The Appellate Authority also rejected the claim, prompting the Petitioner to approach the High Court. Issue 2: Consideration of Supreme Court orders on limitation extension The Petitioner argued that the limitation period for the refund claim was extended by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's orders in a specific writ petition. The High Court noted that neither the First Authority nor the Appellate Authority considered these Supreme Court decisions while calculating the limitation period. The Court directed to set aside the impugned order, restore the Petitioner's appeal, and instruct the Appellate Authority to re-examine the limitation aspect in light of the Supreme Court's order. The High Court quashed the Appellate Authority's order, restored the Petitioner's appeal, and directed the Appellate Authority to reconsider the limitation issue in view of the Supreme Court's order. The Appellate Authority was given a time limit of 12 weeks to make a decision from the date of the order being uploaded on the court's server.
|
