2021 (11) TMI 973 - HC - GST

Court sets aside orders for lack of reasons on refund rejections under Central Goods and Services Tax Act.

M/s. GNC Infra LLP Versus Assistant Commissioner (Circle)

The court set aside the impugned orders due to the absence of recorded reasons for rejecting refund applications under the Central Goods and Services Tax ... Relevant date for claiming refund under CGST Act - interpretation of the expression 'relevant date' qua CGST (Amendment) Act 2018 - period June of 2018 and August of 2018 - Rule 92 of CGST Rules and Section 54(8) (b) of C-GST Act - HELD THAT:- The refund applications made on 19.04.2021 need to be entertained and the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly enures to the benefit of the writ petitioner in the case on hand. To that extent, the impugned orders are wrong. Matter sent back to the respondent for considering the refund application de novo and make an order inter alia in accordance with Rule 92 of said Rules and Section 54 (8) (b) of CGST Act - petition disposed off. Issues involved:Refund under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Interpretation of the expression 'relevant date' in light of the Central Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Act, 2018; Benefit of suo-moto orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding extension of limitation periods due to Covid-19 situation; Examination of refund applications; Compliance with Rule 92(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.Analysis:1. Refund under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017:The judgment pertains to refund applications made under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The refund applications in question sought refunds for transactions in June 2018 and August 2018. The impugned orders rejected the refund applications on the grounds that they were made beyond the two-year period from the relevant date. However, the petitioner argued that the benefit of the suo-moto orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, extending limitation periods due to the Covid-19 situation, should apply to their case, thereby allowing the refund applications to be entertained.2. Interpretation of the expression 'relevant date' in light of the Central Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Act, 2018:The critical issue discussed was the interpretation of the expression 'relevant date' in the context of the Central Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Act, 2018. The petitioner's counsel contended that due to the suo-moto orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court extending limitation periods, the specific interpretation of 'relevant date' under the Amendment Act might not be necessary in this case. This argument was based on the broader extension of limitation periods granted by the Supreme Court.3. Benefit of suo-moto orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding extension of limitation periods due to Covid-19 situation:The petitioner relied on the suo-moto orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which extended limitation periods for various legal proceedings due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The petitioner argued that these orders should apply to their refund applications, even if it meant not delving into the specific interpretation of the 'relevant date' under the Amendment Act. The judgment considered the applicability of these orders in the context of the refund applications made by the petitioner.4. Examination of refund applications:Another significant aspect of the judgment was the examination of the refund applications by the tax authorities. The impugned orders had examined the applications but failed to provide reasons for the rejection of the refunds as required under Rule 92(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The court highlighted this deficiency and emphasized the importance of recording reasons for rejecting refund claims, ensuring compliance with the procedural requirements.5. Compliance with Rule 92(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017:The judgment underscored the necessity of complying with Rule 92(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, which mandates that the proper officer must record reasons in writing if any part of the claimed refund is not admissible or payable. The court noted the absence of such recorded reasons in the impugned orders and directed the tax authorities to reconsider the refund applications de novo, ensuring adherence to the procedural requirements and statutory provisions.In conclusion, the judgment set aside the impugned orders due to the lack of recorded reasons for rejection and directed the tax authorities to reexamine the refund applications in accordance with the Central Goods and Services Tax Act and Rules, emphasizing the importance of providing detailed reasons for any decision on refund claims.