9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visions of Section 54, would be two years. Such application initially was not being considered by the Deputy Commissioner for which the petitioner made several representations. Pursuant thereto, on 02 March, 2022, the petitioner received a notice for rejection of the refund application by respondent no. 2. In these circumstances, the petitioner filed a detailed reply before the Deputy Commissioner on 10 March, 2022. A personal hearing was also accorded to the petitioner on 27 May, 2022. Before the Deputy Commissioner the petitioner contended, for exclusion of the period from 01 March 2020 to 28 February, 2022 for calculating the limitation period in regard to the refund claimed by the petitioner as notified under the notification No. 13 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 23 March, 2020 in the proceedings of Suo- Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 (supra). The petitioner also submitted that the purport of the circulars dated 15 November, 2017, 15 March, 2018 and 04 September, 2018 and the final circular dated 28 June, 2019 have also not been appropriately considered, inasmuch as it could not have been said that the petitioner filing the application by online method, was not acceptable, when there was no dispute in regard to such filing of the application. It is submitted that in any event, if there was to be any deficiency in the application, once the same was filed within the limitation, it would not permit the authorities to reject the petitioner s application on the ground that as the refund applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... below could have taken into consideration the orders passed by the Supreme Court as also the purport of the circulars. He would also not dispute that in the petitioner s own case as noted above, this Court had directed the authorities to consider the petitioner s refund application on merits though for a different period. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we find much substance in the contentions as urged on behalf of the petitioner. We are of the opinion 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 wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
