Legal Challenge Succeeds: Refund Application Reinstated After Limitation Period Extension Overrides Administrative Rejection

HC quashed the impugned orders rejecting the petitioner's refund request, finding that the application fell within the Supreme Court's extended limitation period. The court directed restoration of refund applications for reconsideration, emphasizing that alternative remedy does not preclude judicial review when orders contradict established legal principles.

---

---

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.

---