2023 (10) TMI 937 - HC - GST

Refund of Input Tax Credit - Rejection on the ground that the petitioner s application was filed beyond the period as stipulated under Section 54(1) of the Central Goods Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - Section 54(1) of the CGST Act stipulates that an application for refund may be filed within the period of two years from the relevant date. The expression relevant date is defined in Explanation (2) to Section 54 of the CGST Act - In the present case, the statement filed by the petitioner clearly indicates the date on the shipping bills and the invoices. Thus, there is no ambiguity for computing the period of limitation in reference to the relevant date. The respondents have filed the counter affidavit, however, the same is not on record - the respondents are directed to process the petitioner s claim for refund along with applicable interest, if any, within a period of two weeks from today - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The petitioner's appeal against the rejection of refund order dated 31.05.2021 was rejected, specifically regarding the refund application for the period 01.06.2018 to 31.03.2019 under Section 54(1) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.

Issue 1: Refund rejection for the period 01.06.2018 to 31.03.2019:
The petitioner sought a refund of Input Tax Credit amounting to Rs. 13,71,484/-, with a breakup for two periods. While the refund for the period 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 was allowed, the refund for the period 01.06.2018 to 31.03.2019 was rejected due to filing beyond the stipulated period u/s 54(1) of the CGST Act.

Issue 2: Appellate Authority's decision and grounds for rejection:
The Appellate Authority accepted that the application was not time-barred due to a specific notification, but rejected the appeal citing lack of documentary evidence on the mode of export, which was necessary to ascertain the commencement date for calculating the limitation period under Section 54(1) of the CGST Act.

Judgment Details:
The High Court found the impugned order unsustainable for multiple reasons. Firstly, the Adjudicating Authority did not raise any issue regarding document submission by the petitioner, and had partly allowed a previous refund application. Secondly, the petitioner had provided a detailed tabular statement and email with necessary details, which were not disputed. The relevant date for the limitation period calculation was clear from the shipping bills and invoices submitted by the petitioner.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the petition, directing the respondents to process the petitioner's refund claim with applicable interest within two weeks. The petition was disposed of accordingly.