9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner would be from the date of shipping mentioned in the shipping bills. Therefore, period of two years is required to be calculated from the date of shipping. In view of decision of IOC Limited [2012 (10) TMI 690 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] wherein decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Mafatlal Industries Ltv. v. Union of India [1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT] has been followed with respect to the delayed claim of refund of custom and excise wherein it is held that where the refund application is on the ground of provisions of 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. Therefore, in facts of the case, refund claim of the petitioner was required to be filed as per the provisions of section 54 (1) of the GST act only. Conclusion - The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that as per the provisions of section 54 (3), relevant date would be the date of filing the return under the provisions of GST Act cannot be accepted in view of Explanation 2 to section 54 of the GST Act. As the petitioner has failed to file the refund claim within the prescribed period of two y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... granted the refund for the period from July, 2017 to March,2018. 6. In support of his submission, reliance is placed upon the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of M/s. Proxima Steel Forge Pvt Ltd. v. Union of India and others in CWP-21975-2024 decided on 03.10.2024 wherein refund application was rejected on the ground of limitation after the appeal was allowed by the Joint Commissioner setting aside the order of rejection of the refund claim on the ground that subordinate officer could not have refused to examine the case on merits when remanded. 7. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Madras High Court in case of M/s. Lenovo (India) Pvt. ltd. Rep. By its Authorised Signatory Mr. Seiyadou Ahamadou v. the Joint Commissioner of GST (Appeals-1) (Judgment dated 06.11.2023 rendered in W.P. Nos. 23604 and 23605 of 2022) wherein it is held that reading section 54 (1) of the GST Act would make it clear that assessee can make application within two years and the term used in the said section "may make application before two years from the relevant date in such form and manner as may be prescribed" which means that the assessee may make application within two years a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11B itself are sufficiently clear. Sub-section (1) of Section 11E, as already noted, provides that any 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 where under duty is levied is held to be unconstitutional, only in such cases suit or writ petition would be maintainable. Other than such cases, all refund claim must be filed and adjudicated under the Central Excise and Customs Act, as the case may be. Combined with the said decision, if we also take into account the observations of the Apex co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the petition, it is submitted that Section 54 (1) of CGST Act, 2017 provides that the petitioner to file the refund application within the period of two years from the relevant date and every claim filed within the time limit prescribed in the law is considered and processed as per the Rule 89 of CGST Rules, 2017 and as per Section 54 of the CGST, Act 2017. Any refund claim which is filed beyond the time period prescribed by statute cannot be granted 6.5 With reference to Ground E of the petition, it is submitted that the CGST, Act 2017 came in effect from 01.07.2017, and it has since provided many relaxations to the petitioner regarding filing of returns, refund application etc. In this case the petitioner was given relaxation in the date of filing of refund application for the month of March, 2018 from 20.04.2020 to 30.06.2020 and due to that relaxation in filing of refund application the refund amount of Rs. 6,19,302/- became eligible, otherwise that would have also been ineligible. The Law is always working towards the welfare of the taxpayers of this country and it considers the demands of taxpayers through various GST council meetings, by way of Circulars and Notificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espective parties and on perusal of the material placed on record, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner to apply the provisions of section 54 (1) for extending the relevant date upto the date of filing of the return cannot be accepted. 15. Section 54 (1) reads as under: "Section 54. Refund of tax.- (1) Any person claiming refund of any tax and interest, if any, paid on such tax or any other amount paid by him, may make an application before the expiry of two years from the relevant date in such form and manner as may be prescribed:.." 16. Relevant date is explained in Explanation to section 54 as under: "(2) "relevant date" means- (a) in the case of goods exported out of India where a refund of tax paid is available in respect of goods themselves or, as the case may be, the inputs or input services used in such goods,- (i) if the goods are exported by sea or air, the date on which the ship or the aircraft in which such goods are loaded, leaves India; or….." 17. On conjoint reading of Explanation 2 with Section 54 (1), it is clear that any person claiming refund of any tax and interest, if any, paid on such tax or any other amount paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bined with the said decision, if we also take into account the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Kirloskar Pneumatic Company (supra), it would become clear that the petitioner had to file refund claim as provided under section 11B of the Act and even this Court would not be in a position to ignore the substantive provisions and the time limit prescribed therein." 20. In view of above decision wherein decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Mafatlal Industries Ltv. v. Union of India reported in (1997) 5 SCC 536 has been followed with respect to the delayed claim of refund of custom and excise wherein it is held that where the refund application is on the ground of provisions of 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. Therefore, in facts of the case, refund claim of the petitioner was required to be filed as per the provisions of section 54 (1) of the GST act only. 21. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that as per the provisions of section 54 (3), relevant date would be the date of filing the return under the provisions of GST Act cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
