9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 1229 - HC - GSTRefund claim - delayed application of refund - Department does not dispute the applicability of circular dated 5th July, 2022 as well as the adjudication made by this Court in 2022 (3) TMI 578 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COUR in the facts of the present case. HELD THAT - In that view of the matter and for the reasons recorded by this Court in Writ Tax No. 173 of 2022, this writ petition also succeeds and is disposed of on same terms. The order impugned dated 27.10.2021 stands quashed. Respondent no. 4 is directed to revisit the issue in light of the above observations, by passing a fresh order, within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.
Issues Involved:
1. Refund of tax claimed by the petitioner being declined on the ground of delay in application. The petitioner filed a refund application for tax periods in 2018, which was rejected due to being filed after the expiration of the limitation period. The petitioner argued that the period between 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was directed by the Supreme Court to be excluded for limitation purposes. The Supreme Court's order dated 10.01.2022 excluded this period for all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings due to the Covid pandemic. The High Court held that the refund application could not have been rejected based solely on delay, considering the Supreme Court's order. The impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remitted back to the respondent to decide the refund application in accordance with the law within six weeks. 2. Applicability of circular dated 5th July, 2022 and adjudication made by the Court in Writ Tax No. 173 of 2022. The Court noted that the denial of refund by the respondent was unsustainable in view of the circular issued by the Board and the Court's adjudication in Writ Tax No. 173 of 2022. The department did not dispute the applicability of the circular and the Court's adjudication in the present case. Consequently, the writ petition succeeded, and the impugned order was quashed. Respondent no. 4 was directed to reconsider the issue and pass a fresh order within six weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of the order.
|
