2023 (9) TMI 1245 - HC - GST

Seeking refund of the unutilised ITC - time limitation - petitioner s application dismissed as being barred by time - HELD THAT - The petitioner preferred an appeal against the impugned order dated 28.01.2022 passed by the adjudicating authority. However, the appellate authority also dismissed the petitioner s appeal by an order dated 11.08.2023, on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The notification no. 13/2022-Central Tax dated 05.07.2022 expressly provides that the period commencing from the 1 st day of March, 2020 to 28th February, 2022, would be excluded, inter alia, for the purposes of filing the refund application under Section 54 or Section 55 of the CGST Act - Undisputedly, the petitioner s application for refund was within the time limit as prescribed under Section 54(1) of the CGST Act, if the said period is excluded. The benefit of the said circular has not been provided to the petitioner, as the same was issued after the petitioner s refund application was rejected. The impugned orders are set aside - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
The petitioner sought refund of unutilised Input Tax Credit (ITC) for zero-rated supplies. The authorities rejected the refund application as time-barred under Section 54(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act).

Impugned Orders and Appeals:
The petitioner challenged orders dated 28.01.2022 and 11.08.2023 denying the refund of unutilised ITC. The appellate authority upheld the rejection on the ground of limitation.

Contentions and Arguments:
The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the refund application was due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which disrupted operations. The petitioner cited the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order and a notification by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) excluding the period from 1st March, 2020 to 28th February, 2022 for filing refund applications under the CGST Act.

Decision and Rationale:
The High Court set aside the impugned orders, stating that the petitioner's application fell within the time limit if the excluded period was considered. The Court directed the respondents to process the refund application with applicable interest within two weeks. The petitioner's entitlement to refund was upheld based on the relevant legal provisions and notifications.