9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1089X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h an argument, which cannot be taken before the appellate authority. The relevant date requires determination in view of Section 54 (14), explanation 2 (a) (i) of the Act on consideration of the documents, as submitted, filed by the petitioner, to arrive a conclusion, on what date the ship in which goods were loaded left India. In the exercise of the writ jurisdiction, this Court considers it not appropriate, at this stage to determine such question which is a disputed question of fact and requires for its determination the evidence. The said exercise, can be done effectively by the appellate authority. Consequently, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. This Writ Petition is dismissed, on the ground of availability of statuto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at explanation (2) (a) (i) of Section 54 and Rule 92(3) R/w Sec 54 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017, consequently i) To set aside the impugned proceedings in form RFD-03 dated 03.04.2024 ii) To direct the 1st respondent to consider the refund claim of the petitioner iii To pass 3. The petitioner is challenging the Form GST RFD-03 dated 03.04.2024 (P1) rejecting the petitioner s claim for refund of tax for the period from January, 2022 to March, 2022. The rejection is on the ground that the taxpayer failed to meet the deadline for submitting the application on 29.02.2024. The deadline for filing the application of two years relevant period, ended on 21.03.2024. The deficiency memo was issued to that effect with an advice to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the authority but the same has not been considered and if the same had been taken into consideration, date of the application of refund was within the period of two (02) years from the relevant date. 6. The question involved is whether the petitioner s application was within the period of two years from the relevant date or not. The authority has taken a view that it was beyond the period of two years and barred by limitation. The submission is that the documents filed by the petitioner were not considered. 7. The petitioner has got the statutory alternative remedy of appeal against the order of rejection of claim for refund. The argument as advanced before us, is not such an argument, which cannot be taken before the appellate autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
