9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ountries across the world as per the provisions of Section 54 of the GST Act read with section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (For short "the IGST Act"). The petitioner was entitled to refund of the IGST paid on the zero-rated supplies in form of export which have been undertaken by the petitioner from July, 2017 onwards after coming into force of GST Act from 01.07.2017. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that application for refund of IGST was filed by the petitioner on 15.06.2020. The respondent authority did not grant the refund application from July 2017 to March 2018 on the ground that the petitioner had filed refund application beyond the relevant period as per Explanation (2) to section 54 of the GST Act. The petitioner therefore, being aggrieved has preferred this petition. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Punit Juneja for the petitioner submitted that the delay on part of the petitioner was inadvertent and therefore, the petitioner should not be deprived of its rightful claim of refund as per the provisions of the GST Act. It was further submitted that as per Circular No. 06/2020 dated 03.02.2020, time period for filing of the return was extended upto 05.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcular. 10. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Utkarsh Sharma appearing for the respondent authority submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner had exported goods from July, 2017 to March, 2018 and application for refund was filed on 15.06.2020 and for the said period, the application for refund was beyond the prescribed beyond of years as per the provisions of section 54 (1) of the Act. 11. In support of his submission, reliance was placed on the following averments made in the affidavit in reply on behalf of the respondent authorities: "On reading of the above mentioned provisions, it is clear that section 54 (1) provides the time limit to file a refund within two years from the relevant date which is ample amount of time to file the refund applications for any given period. Honble High Court of Gujarat in its order dated 15.12.2011 in the case of IOC Ltd. Vs. UOI (SCA No. 12074/2011) while dealing the similar issue of refund in case of excise while interpreting the provisions of section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 has held as under: "We are unable to uphold the contention that such period of limitation was only procedural requi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovid-19 pandemic cannot be sustainable as lockdown was announced in the month March, 2020 whereas the last date of filling of refund claim application for the period from July, 2017 to February, 2020 was ends on 20.03.2020 well before of lockdown. It is to mention that on 31.03.2020, keeping in view the situation arising out of COVID-19, an ordinance THE TAXATION AND OTHER LAWS (RELAXATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS) ORDINANCE, 2020 was promulgated by the Hon'ble President inserting section 168A in CGST Act, 2017 for granting power to the Government to extend time limit in special circumstances. Accordingly, Notification No. 35/2020-Central Tax dated 03.04.2020 was issued vide which due date for filing of refund application specified in, or prescribed or notified under GST Act, falls during the period from the 20th march, 2020 to 29th june,2020 was extended upto 30th June, 2020. Therefore, the due date for filling of refund claim for the period of March 2018 was extended upto 30.06.2020. In view of the above, the petitioner was eligible for the refund of tax period March, 2018 only. Accordingly, the eligible amount of refund for the period of March, 2018 amounting to Rs. 6,19,302/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for the purpose. 6.7 With reference to Ground G of the petition, it is submitted that the rejected refund amount is re-credited in the credit ledger of the petitioner in respective heads i.e. CGST/SGST/IGST/Cess by way of issuing PMT-03 as per sub-rule (4) of Rule 86 of CGST Rules, 2017 and the same can be used for payment of tax by the petitioner." 12. It was further submitted that the petitioner filed refund application for tax period from July 2017 to March, 2018 on 15.06.2020 and the last date for filing refund application for the period July, 2017 was 25.08.2019 and for the period February, 2018 was 20.03.2020 and till then national lock-down was not announced due to Covid-2019 pandemic and the petitioner had ample time to file refund application for the said period. It was submitted that as per section 54 (1) of the GST Act, time limit to file refund is within two years from the relevant date and there was ample time to file refund application for the said period. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in case of IOC Ltd. v. UOI rendered on 15.12.2011 in Special Civil Application No.12074/2011 in support of his submission. 13. It was therefore, submitted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntention that such period of limitation was only procedural requirement and therefore could be extended upon showing sufficient cause for not filing the claim earlier. To begin with, the provisions of section 11B itself are sufficiently clear. Sub-section (1) of section 11B, as already noted, provides that any person claiming refund of any duty of excise may make an application for refund of such duty before the expiry of one year from the relevant date. Remedy to claim refund of duty which is otherwise in law refundable therefore, comes with a period of limitation of one year. There is no indication in the said provision that such period could be extended by the competent authority on sufficient cause being shown. Secondly, we find that the Apex Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, (1997) 5 SCC 536 had the occasion to deal with the question of delayed claim of refund of customs and central excise. Per majority view, it was held that where refund claim is on the ground of the provisions of the Central Excise and Customs Act whereunder duty is levied is held to be unconstitutional, only in such cases suit or writ petition would be maintainable. Other t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
