Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2024 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 286 - HC - GSTRejection of the refund application - rejection on the ground of time limitation - effect of bar of limitation on deficiency in the application, when once the same was filed within the limitation - HELD THAT - Neither the Original Authority nor the Appellate Authority has taken into consideration the fact that the filing of the petitioner s application by the online method was permissible under the circular of the revenue. Hence, once same was appropriately filed, on such count the application could not have been rejected on the ground of limitation. This apart, even assuming that the petitioner subsequently submitted the relevant documents, it could not have been held that the petitioner s application was barred by limitation, as filing of the application was not in dispute and any deficiency noted thereafter was a curable defect which could not have affected the date on which such application was filed and which was within its prescribed limitation. Even the extension of the period of limitation as permitted under the orders of the Supreme Court in Suo-Moto proceedings 2020 (5) TMI 418 - SC ORDER would come to the aid of the petitioner, in not only filing of such documents, but also even in filing of its refund application. All these issues have been overlooked by the authorities below, in rejecting the petitioner s application on the ground of limitation. The refund application dated 13 September, 2019 as filed by the petitioner is restored to the file of the Deputy Commissioner who shall adjudicate such application on its merits and in accordance with law, including on the petitioner s claim to the interest, within a period of eight weeks from the date copy of this order is produced before the authorities - application allowed.
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.
|