9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 1345 - AT - CustomsRefund of IGST - barred by time limitation or not - date of IGST payment and the date of refund application filing - exclusion of limitation period as directed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition 2020 (5) TMI 418 - SC ORDER due to the COVID-19 pandemic - HELD THAT - As the normal period of limitation was till 30.03.2022 for filing of refund whereas the appellant filed their refund application on 12.04.2022 with a delay of 13 days. The Hon ble Supreme Court directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purpose of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi judicial proceedings. It is also directed by the Hon ble Supreme Court that the balance period remaining as on 03.10.2021 if any shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022. Therefore refund application filed by the appellant was within time as the period is covered within second surge of COVID-19 cases which was directed to be excluded by Hon ble Supreme Court as above. Moreover the direction issued by Hon ble Supreme Court was within the knowledge of public domain and it is surprising how the Commissioner (Appeals) was unaware of this direction. Conclusion - i) The refund application filed by the appellant was not barred by limitation due to the exclusion of the limitation period by the Supreme Court s order. ii) The Supreme Court s order excluding the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 from limitation calculations applies to the refund application under Customs law. The impugned orders passed by Commissioner (Appeals) are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the impugned orders are dismissed and the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Whether the refund application for IGST was time-barred. Relevant legal framework and precedents: Under the Customs and GST laws, refund claims must be filed within a prescribed limitation period, typically one year from the date of payment of tax. The appellant remitted IGST on 31.03.2021 and filed the refund application on 12.04.2022, which is 13 days beyond the normal one-year limitation period ending on 30.03.2022. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted the timeline of events: IGST payment on 31.03.2021, goods re-exported on 30.09.2021, refund application filed on 12.04.2022, and departmental appeals allowed on limitation grounds by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal considered whether the delay of 13 days rendered the refund application barred by limitation. Key evidence and findings: The refund application was filed 13 days beyond the one-year limitation period. The Commissioner (Appeals) found the application time-barred and allowed the departmental appeal accordingly. Application of law to facts: Ordinarily, the refund application would be barred by limitation. However, the Tribunal considered the impact of the Supreme Court's order on exclusion of limitation periods during the COVID-19 pandemic. Treatment of competing arguments: The appellant argued that the Supreme Court's order excluding the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 from limitation calculations applied, effectively extending the limitation period. The department contended that the refund application was filed beyond the prescribed limitation and the exclusion should not apply. Conclusions: The Tribunal found that the refund application was not barred by limitation due to the exclusion of the limitation period by the Supreme Court's order. Issue 2: Applicability of the Supreme Court's order excluding limitation period due to COVID-19 pandemic. Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Supreme Court's order dated 10.01.2022 in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 03/2020 excluded the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 from limitation calculations in all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings under general or special laws. It further granted a 90-day extension from 01.03.2022 for filing applications where limitation expired during the excluded period. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized that the Supreme Court's order was not limited to any particular class of cases but applied universally to all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. It held that the refund application under Customs law qualifies as a quasi-judicial proceeding, thus attracting the benefit of the exclusion. Key evidence and findings: The refund application was filed on 12.04.2022, within 90 days from 01.03.2022, the period granted by the Supreme Court for filing delayed applications. The Tribunal noted that the normal limitation period expired on 30.03.2022 but the exclusion of the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 extended the effective limitation period. Application of law to facts: Applying the Supreme Court's directions, the Tribunal concluded that the refund application was filed within the extended limitation period and thus valid. Treatment of competing arguments: The department's argument that the exclusion did not apply was rejected as the Supreme Court's order explicitly covered all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings without restriction. Conclusions: The Tribunal held that the refund application was timely filed under the extended limitation period granted by the Supreme Court's order. Issue 3: Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in allowing the departmental appeal on limitation grounds. Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the standard limitation period of one year from the date of tax payment and held that the refund application filed beyond this period was barred. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider the Supreme Court's order excluding the limitation period due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal expressed surprise that such a well-publicized Supreme Court direction was overlooked. Key evidence and findings: The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the departmental appeal solely on limitation grounds without applying the Supreme Court's exclusion order. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in ignoring the Supreme Court's directions, which were binding and applicable to the refund claim. Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal rejected the department's appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, emphasizing adherence to the Supreme Court's ruling. Conclusions: The Commissioner (Appeals)'s order was set aside and the refund claim was allowed. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal preserved the following crucial legal reasoning verbatim from the Supreme Court's order: "The period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings." "Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022." "In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022." Core principles established include:
Final determinations on each issue were:
|
