9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 714X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rayer of the petitioner is issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus for declaring the procedure under Rule 90 (3) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 (for short 'CGST Rules') as ultra vires to the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner is registered with Goods and services Tax Gurugram, vide GSTIN No. 06AACCG2681CIZZ. The assessee has been assigned to the Central GST administration, vide office Order No. 01/2018 dated 10.01.2018 issued by the office of the Chief Commissioner CGST & Central Excise, Haryana Zone and office of the Commissioner of Excise & Taxation Government of Haryana. The Petitioner is engaged in providing world class healthcare service. 3. The precise grievance of the petitioner before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3) after rectifying/clarifying the deficiencies raised in the deficiency memo. 7. Upon examination of the second refund application filed on 05.11.2019, the respondent no. 3 under rule 92(3) sent a show cause notice to the petitioner for rejection of the application of refund. The copy of the Show cause notice dated 11.12.2019 is annexed as Annexure P.4. 8. The petitioner attended the personal hearing on 19.12.2019 and submitted the documents. The petitioner also submitted a reply on dated 24.12.2019 in response to the show cause notice issued on 11.12.2019 having reference no. ZA061219000728L along with all the relevant documents online and other requisite documents offline directly to the office of the Assistant Commissioner. The copies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner at the end of the period of 02 years, sought refund under Section 54 of the Act. The said application being found to be deficient and accordingly, the deficiency was conveyed to the petitioner, vide deficiency memo dated 01.11.2019 (P-2). The petitioner then filed correct fresh application dated 05.11.2019 seeking refund, which was time barred and was thus rejected on the ground of limitation in terms of circular dated 18.11.2019, vide order dated 03.01.2020, which was further affirmed by the Appellate Authority, vide order dated 21.03.2022 (P-7). 12. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the challenge of validity of Rule 90 (2) of CGST Rules, 2017 and has referred to judgment of Delhi High Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s non est. If it is accompanied by the "documentary evidences" as mentioned in Rule 89(2) of the Rules, it cannot be ignored for the purposes of limitation. The limitation would necessarily stop on filing the said application. This is not to say that the information disclosed may not warrant further clarification, however, that by itself cannot lead to the conclusion that the application is required to be treated as non est for the purposes of Section 54 of the CGST Act. It is erroneous to assume that the application, which is accompanied by the documents as specified under Rule 89(2) of the Rules, is required to be treated as complete only after the taxpayer furnishes the clarification of further documents as may be required by the proper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
