2023 (4) TMI 753 - HC - GST

Rejection of refund claim - Period of limitation - filing of application online and manually - Petitioner provided various back-office support services without payment of integrated tax under Letter of Undertaking as per Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - Circular No. 17/17/2017 dated 15 November 2017 - HELD THAT - The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon decision of the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case of M/S. CHROMOTOLAB AND BIOTECH SOLUTIONS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2022 (10) TMI 1000 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT to contend that the Division Bench has taken a view that the date on which the online application is filed should be taken into consideration and not the date of physical application. No contrary decision is shown here. However, even proceeding on the basis that the decision of the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court is applicable, still the facts in the Petitioner s case would have to be examined as to whether the Petitioner is entitled to the law laid down and this enquiry will have to be conducted by the Deputy Commissioner. It is opined that the impugned order needs to be quashed and set aside and the Refund Application of the Petitioner be restored to file to be proceeded from the stage of issuance of Form GST-RFD-08. Order accordingly - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to order rejecting refund application as time-barred under GST laws.

Summary:
The Petitioner challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner rejecting the refund application as time-barred. The Petitioner, engaged in providing services to companies abroad, claimed refund under IGST Act and applied on 5 March 2019. The Commissioner rejected the application citing time limitation and Circular No. 17/17/2017. The Petitioner argued that the online application date should be considered, relying on a Gujarat High Court decision. The Deputy Commissioner's reliance on Circular No. 17/17/2017 was disputed, citing a Bombay High Court decision. The High Court quashed the order, restoring the application for further proceedings. The Deputy Commissioner was directed to reevaluate the application considering the observations made, within twelve weeks of the judgment.

The High Court held that the order rejecting the refund application as time-barred needs to be set aside. The Petitioner's application should be reinstated from the stage of Form GST-RFD-08 issuance. The Deputy Commissioner must provide a hearing to the Petitioner and decide on the application within twelve weeks, taking into account the court's directions. The Writ Petition was disposed of in accordance with the above terms.