Court restores time-barred refund application, citing pandemic extension, leaves constitutionality open for future.

The court quashed the rejection of the petitioner's third refund application as time-barred, restoring the application for further consideration by the respondent. The court relied on Supreme Court orders extending the limitation period due to the pandemic, determining that the third application fell within this extended period and should not have been rejected. The court did not address the constitutionality of Rule 90(3) or the Circular in this order, leaving it open for future consideration. No costs were awarded, and the parties were instructed to comply with the court's decision.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to Rule 90(3) of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 | Rejection of third refund application as time-barred | Application of limitation period under Circular dated 18th November 2019 | Extension of limitation period by Supreme Court orders

Analysis:
The petitioner sought a declaration that Rule 90(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 is unconstitutional and the rejection of their third refund application should be set aside. The petitioner filed refund applications which were rejected due to deficiencies, leading to the third application being filed on 30th September 2020. The rejection of this third application on grounds of being time-barred was contested by the petitioner.

The petitioner relied on Supreme Court orders dated 23rd March 2020 and 23rd September 2021, extending the limitation period due to the pandemic. The third application fell within this extended period, as per the petitioner's argument. Reference was made to a Madras High Court judgment supporting the extension of the limitation period in similar cases.

The respondent argued that the first and second applications were rightfully rejected for deficiencies. They contended that the third application was filed after the two-year limitation period prescribed under Circular No.20/16/04/18-GST dated 18th November 2019. However, the Supreme Court's orders extended the limitation period, making the third application timely.

The court noted that the limitation period between 15th March 2020 and 2nd October 2021 was excluded as per the Supreme Court orders, including in cases of refund applications. Consequently, the third application fell within the extended limitation period and should not have been rejected as time-barred. The court quashed the rejection order, restored the third refund application, and directed the respondent to consider it on its merits and in accordance with the law.

The court emphasized that it did not assess the validity of the Circular or Rule 90(3) in this order, leaving it open for consideration in an appropriate case. The parties were instructed to act based on an authenticated copy of the court's order, and no costs were awarded in the matter.

---