Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2024 (5) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2024 (5) TMI 314 - HC - GST


Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are the rejection of a refund claim under section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 due to the expiration of the limitation period for filing the claim, and the subsequent applicability of a notification excluding certain periods for computation of the limitation period.

Summary:

1. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to challenge the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent dismissing the appeal against the original order related to a refund claim under section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner had exported goods and claimed a refund, but the claim was rejected due to the expiration of the limitation period for filing the claim.

2. The petitioner exported goods between April 2018 and February 2019, and the limitation period for filing the refund claim had expired during the Covid-19 lockdown in March 2020. The Central Government issued a notification excluding certain periods for computation of the limitation period, which the respondents were not aware of when passing the impugned order.

3. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the case back to the 2nd respondent to reconsider the petitioner's refund claim in light of the notification excluding certain periods for computation of the limitation period. The 1st respondent was directed to pass a fresh order on the refund claim expeditiously, preferably within six months, and provide the petitioner with a hearing if needed for clarification.

4. The Writ Petition was allowed with the above observations, and no costs were imposed. Connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions were closed, and the parties were advised to file suitable applications for reviewing the order if necessary.

Separate Judgement:
No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates