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 (2) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2024 (2) TMI 286 - HC - GST


Issues involved:
The challenge to an order rejecting a refund application under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act based on limitation period calculation.

Summary:
The petitioner filed a refund application under Section 54(3) of the CGST Act for an amount of Rs. 9,98,64,611/- for a specific period. The application was initially not considered, leading to a notice of rejection by the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner contended for exclusion of a specific period for calculating the limitation period, citing relevant notifications and Supreme Court orders. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the application as barred by limitation, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner argued non-application of mind by the authorities, citing the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and inadequacies in considering circulars. The petitioner sought relief based on a previous court order in a similar case. The department supported the impugned orders, acknowledging the direction in the previous court order to consider the refund application on merits.

Upon review, the court found substance in the petitioner's contentions. It noted that the online filing of the application was permissible under revenue circulars, and any subsequent deficiencies were curable defects that did not affect the application's initial filing within the limitation period. The court emphasized that the extension of limitation period by Supreme Court orders applied to both filing of documents and the refund application itself. The authorities had overlooked these issues in rejecting the application. The court also highlighted that in a previous case involving the petitioner, the authorities had accepted court orders directing consideration of the refund application on merits. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashing the impugned order and directing the Deputy Commissioner to adjudicate the application on its merits within a specified timeframe. All contentions on the merits of the refund application were kept open.

Separate Judgement:
None.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates