TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Legal Challenge Succeeds: Refund Application Reinstated After Limitation Period Extension Overrides Administrative Rejection</h1> <h3>M/s MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD Versus UNION OF INDIA, COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAXES</h3> HC quashed the impugned orders rejecting the petitioner's refund request, finding that the application fell within the Supreme Court's extended limitation ... Request for refund rejected on the ground of time limitation - Availment of alternative remedy - HELD THAT:- It is trite that alternative remedy itself is no reason to reject a writ petition when it can be shown that the impugned orders are ex facie contrary to the settled propositions, including positive directions by the higher Courts. If it is undisputed that the limitation for the petitioner’s subject refund applications expired during the period between 01.03.2020 and 28.02.2022, the petitioner would be entitled for an extended limitation of ninety [90] days from 01.03.2022 and the applications are within this time, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order sustained. The petition is allowed quashing the impugned orders dated 20.07.2022 in Nos.44/2022, 45/2022 and 46/2022 (Annexures – A, A-1 and A-2) by the third respondent and the petitioner’s refund applications are restored for reconsideration. Issues:1. Rejection of refund request based on limitation period.2. Interpretation of Notification 13/2022-CT and Supreme Court's order on limitation extension.3. Consideration of alternative remedy when rejecting a writ petition.Analysis:1. The petitioner's refund request for the period from February 2018 to April 2018 was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Taxes citing limitation. The third respondent concluded that the claim was filed after the expiry of two years from the relevant date, thus falling under the limitation of time. The petitioner challenged this rejection on the grounds of limitation.2. The petitioner argued that the Notification dated 15.07.2022, which excludes a specific period for computing limitation, should be read in conjunction with the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation 2022. The Supreme Court clarified that if the limitation expires during the excluded period, an extended period of ninety days from 01.03.2022 should apply. The petitioner contended that their refund application falls within this permissible period, which the third respondent failed to consider.3. The Court acknowledged that the availability of an alternative remedy does not justify rejecting a writ petition if the impugned orders are contrary to settled propositions or higher court directions. Considering that the petitioner's refund applications fell within the extended limitation period of ninety days from 01.03.2022, the Court quashed the impugned orders dated 20.07.2022 and restored the petitioner's refund applications for reconsideration without the need for further notice. The petitioner was directed to appear before the respondents on a specified date for further proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
