9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 973X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9; ('WMPs' in plural and 'WMP' in singular for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity). 2. Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made in the previous listing on 01.09.2021 and 03.09.2021, which read as follows: ' Proceedings made on 01.09.2021: Subject matter of captioned writ petitions pertains to refund under 'The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017' [hereinafter 'CGST Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. 2. The critical point pertains to meaning of 'relevant date' in the light of 'The Central Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Act, 2018' [hereinafter 'CGST (Amendment) Act 2018' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. 3. Be that as it may, Mr.Adithya Reddy learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that it may not be necessary to go into interpretation of the expression 'relevant date' qua CGST (Amendment) Act 2018 in the light of suo-moto orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein all limitation periods across the Board were extended. In other words, learned counsel submits that if the benefit of suo-moto orders by the Hon'ble S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gned orders say that refund applications should have been made within two years from the relevant date, but it goes on to say that the refund applications have been 'examined' as the impugned orders say 'upon examination of your application'. 8. With regard to two orders what has already been recorded on 01.09.2021 proceedings are reiterated. Therefore, two orders with regard to June 2018 refund elapsed in July of 2020 and with regard to August 2018 refund it elapsed in August of 2020. Admittedly, the refund applications were made only on 19.04.2021 beyond the two years period. Learned counsel submits that he has the benefit of suo-motu order of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 27.04.2021 made in Miscellaneous Application No.665/2021 in SMW(c) No.3/2020, a scanned reproduction of which is as follows: ORDER The Court is convened through Video Conferencing. This Court took suo motu cognizance of the situation arising out of the challenge faced by the country on account of COVID-19 Virus and resultant difficulties that could be faced by the litigants across the country. Consequently, it was directed vide order dated 23rd March, 2020 that the perio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er courts in Delhi. Consequently, restoration of the order dated 23rd March, 2020 has been prayed for. We have heard Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, President SCAORA in support of the prayer made in this application. Learned Attorney General and Learned Solicitor General have also given their valuable suggestions. We also take judicial notice of the fact that the steep rise in COVID-19 Virus cases is not limited to Delhi alone but it has engulfed the entire nation. The extraordinary situation caused by the sudden and second outburst of COVID-19 Virus, thus, requires extraordinary measures to minimize the hardship of litigant public in all the states. We, therefore, restore the order dated 23rd March, 2020 and in continuation of the order dated 8th March, 2021 direct that the period(s) of limitation, as prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, whether condonable or not, shall stand extended till further orders. It is further clarified that the period from 14th March, 2021 till further orders shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e impugned orders, as already alluded to supra, say that they have examined the refund applications, learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that reasons for refund should have been recorded in the impugned orders as that is a requirement ingrained in Rule 92(3) of the 'Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017' [hereinafter 'said Rules' for the sake of convenience and clarity], which reads as follows: '92. Order sanctioning refund (1)...... (2) ..... (3) Where the proper officer is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing that the whole or any part of the amount claimed as refund is not admissible or is not payable to the applicant, he shall issue a notice in FORM GST RFD-08 to the applicant, requiring him to furnish a reply in FORM GST RFD-09 within a period of fifteen days of the receipt of such notice and after considering the reply, make an order in FORM GST RFD-06 sanctioning the amount of refund in whole or part, or rejecting the said refund claim and the said order shall be made available to the applicant electronically and the provisions of sub-rule (1) shall, mutatis mutandis , apply to the extent refund is allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
