2023 (6) TMI 1299 - HC - GST

Refund of input tax credit - rejection on the ground of time limitation - HELD THAT - Learned counsel for the respondents who has filed his statement of objections does not dispute the said submission made by petitioner s counsel. However he contends that the order of rejection was passed by the Assistant Commissioner prior to the notification dated 15.07.2022 and therefore no fault can be found in the same. Be that as it may be, the fact remains that this Court has already considered the question involved in this writ petition in M/S MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAXES 2023 (1) TMI 1265 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT and therefore, even this writ petition is required to be disposed of in terms of the orders passed in the said petition by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent is set aside and the petitioner s application for refund is restored and the 4th respondent is directed to consider the same afresh in accordance with law - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issue involves the rejection of the petitioner's prayer for refund of input tax credit for the month of November 2018 on the ground of limitation, which was upheld by the 3rd respondent appellate authority in the impugned order.

Judgment Summary:

Issue 1 - Rejection of input tax credit refund:
The petitioner's prayer for refund of input credit tax for November 2018 was rejected by the 4th respondent citing limitation. The 3rd respondent appellate authority upheld this rejection in the impugned order dated 25.04.2022. The petitioner challenged this decision by filing a writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Legal Arguments:
The petitioner argued that the dispute is covered by previous orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court. Reference was made to a Co-ordinate Bench order in the case of M/s. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd., vs. Union of India and others.

Respondents' Position:
The respondents did not dispute the petitioner's submission regarding the legal precedent. However, they argued that the rejection was made by the Assistant Commissioner before a specific notification date, implying no fault in the decision.

Court's Decision:
Considering the previous orders of the High Court, the Court allowed the writ petition. The impugned order of the 3rd respondent was set aside, and the petitioner's refund application was reinstated. The 4th respondent was directed to reconsider the application in accordance with the law. The petitioner was instructed to appear before the 4th respondent on a specified date without further notice.

This summary provides a detailed overview of the issues involved in the legal judgment, the arguments presented by both parties, and the final decision rendered by the Court.