2024 (5) TMI 356 - HC - GST

Rejection of refund on the ground of delay - time limitation - HELD THAT - Undoubtedly the claim for refund should have been made by the petitioner within two years from the relevant date i.e. date of export. The export having been made during the years 2018 and 2019, the refund applications should have been filed by 2020 and 2021. At the same time, it cannot be lost sight that owing to spread of Pandemic Covid-19, first upon orders passed by the Supreme Court, in Public Interest Litigation and then in terms of the Government Notification No.13 of 2022, dated 5th July, 2022, the limitation for the duration 15.2.2020 to 28.2.2022 remained suspended. The applications for refund were filed by the petitioner not later than 21.6.2021 (for the tax period April, 2018 to March, 2019) and not later than 24.7.2021 (for the tax period April, 2019 to June, 2019). The matter remitted to respondent No.3 i.e. Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Division- (IV) to proceed to pass fresh orders on the refund applications made by the petitioner, without raising any objection as to delay - Petition disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment deals with the rejection of refund applications by the petitioner for the tax periods of April 2018 to March 2019 and April 2019 to June 2019, citing delay as the reason.

Details of the judgment:

Issue 1: Refund applications rejection
The petitioner filed refund applications for the mentioned tax periods, which were rejected due to delay in submission. The court noted that the claims for refund should have been made within two years from the relevant date of export, i.e., by 2020 and 2021. However, considering the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and the subsequent suspension of limitations, the applications were filed within the extended timeline. The court referred to a previous judgment to support the petitioner's position.

Issue 2: Legal position and decision
The court clarified that the applications for refund were filed within the permissible timeline, and the rejection based solely on delay cannot be upheld. The counsel for the revenue acknowledged the undisputed dates and agreed not to contest further. Consequently, the court set aside the orders rejecting the refund applications and remitted the matter to the Assistant Commissioner to reevaluate the applications without considering the delay objection. The court directed for a prompt resolution within three months, allowing the petitioner an opportunity to respond if any part of the claim faces rejection.