9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (2) TMI 201 - HC - GSTRefund of the compensation cess paid on exported goods - time limitation - refund application filed beyond the relevant period as per Explanation (2) to section 54 of the GST Act - HELD THAT - The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner to apply the provisions of section 54 (1) for extending the relevant date upto the date of filing of the return cannot be accepted. On conjoint reading of Explanation 2 with Section 54 (1) it is clear that any person claiming refund of any tax and interest if any paid on such tax or any other amount paid by him has to make application before the expiry of two years from the relevant date and as per Explanation 2 relevant date means in the case of goods exported out of India is the date on which such goods are loaded either in Ship or aircraft leaves India is the relevant date. Therefore in the facts of the case relevant date for the goods exported by the petitioner would be from the date of shipping mentioned in the shipping bills. Therefore period of two years is required to be calculated from the date of shipping. In view of decision of IOC Limited 2012 (10) TMI 690 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT wherein decision of Hon ble Apex Court in case of Mafatlal Industries Ltv. v. Union of India 1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT has been followed with respect to the delayed claim of refund of custom and excise wherein it is held that where the refund application is on the ground of provisions of Central Excise and Customs Act whereunder duty is levied is held to be unconstitutional only in such cases suit or writ petition would be maintainable. Therefore in facts of the case refund claim of the petitioner was required to be filed as per the provisions of section 54 (1) of the GST act only. Conclusion - The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that as per the provisions of section 54 (3) relevant date would be the date of filing the return under the provisions of GST Act cannot be accepted in view of Explanation 2 to section 54 of the GST Act. As the petitioner has failed to file the refund claim within the prescribed period of two years from the relevant date the respondent authority has rightly rejected such refund claim as being time barred. Petition dismissed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issue in this case is whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the compensation cess paid on exported goods for the financial year 2017-2018, despite filing the refund application beyond the prescribed period as per Section 54 of the Central/State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act). ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 1. Legal Framework and Precedents The petitioner sought a refund under Section 54 of the GST Act, which allows for a refund of tax and interest paid on such tax, provided the application is made before the expiry of two years from the relevant date. The relevant date, as defined in Explanation 2 to Section 54, is the date on which the goods are exported out of India. The petitioner relied on precedents from the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Madras High Court, which suggested that the two-year period for filing a refund application is not absolute and may be extended in appropriate cases. However, the respondent cited the Gujarat High Court's decision in IOC Ltd. v. UOI, which emphasized the strict adherence to statutory time limits for refund claims. 2. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning The Court focused on the statutory interpretation of Section 54 of the GST Act. It highlighted that the provision clearly mandates a two-year period for filing refund claims from the relevant date, which is the date of export. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the period could be extended based on the filing date of the return. The Court also referred to the decision in IOC Ltd. v. UOI, which reinforced the principle that statutory time limits for refund claims must be strictly adhered to unless explicitly stated otherwise by the statute. 3. Key Evidence and Findings The petitioner exported goods from July 2017 to March 2018 and filed the refund application on June 15, 2020. The respondent argued that the application was beyond the two-year limit, with the last date for filing being March 20, 2020, for the period ending February 2018. The respondent also noted that an ordinance and subsequent notification extended the deadline for filing refund applications due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but this extension only applied to claims for March 2018, which the petitioner did receive. 4. Application of Law to Facts The Court applied the statutory provisions of Section 54 of the GST Act to the facts, determining that the petitioner's refund application was filed beyond the prescribed two-year period from the relevant date. The relevant date for the petitioner's exports was the date the goods were loaded for export, and the application period should have been calculated from this date. 5. Treatment of Competing Arguments The petitioner argued that the delay in filing was inadvertent and should be condoned, citing various precedents and circulars. However, the Court found these arguments unpersuasive, emphasizing the clear statutory language of Section 54 and the lack of any provision allowing for an extension of the filing period based on inadvertence or external circumstances. 6. Conclusions The Court concluded that the petitioner failed to file the refund application within the statutory period, and the respondent authority was correct in rejecting the claim as time-barred. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS 1. Core Principles Established The Court reaffirmed the principle that statutory time limits for filing refund claims under tax laws must be strictly adhered to unless the statute explicitly provides for extensions. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the legislative framework and the prescribed timelines. 2. Final Determinations on Each Issue The Court determined that the petitioner's refund application was filed beyond the statutory period, and thus, the rejection of the refund claim by the respondent was justified. The Court dismissed the petition, upholding the respondent's decision.
|
