2022 (1) TMI 1214 - HC - GST

Court upholds statutory provisions, directs prompt refund decision. Importance of considering all info stressed.

M/s. Triveni Electrodes, and M/s. Yogesh Industries And Oil Mills, Versus Union Of India, The Chief Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax, Jaipur, The Commissioner, State Goods And Service Tax, Jaipur, The Assistant Commissioner, Rajasthan, Goods And Services Tax Department, Circle-B, Bharatpur

M/s. Triveni Electrodes, and M/s. Yogesh Industries And Oil Mills, Versus Union Of India, The Chief Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax, Jaipur, ... Issues:Challenge to the vires of Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Direction to set aside a deficiency memo dated 04.12.2020; Refund claim of accumulated credit in the ledger account; Time-barred refund claim; Application of COVID-related extensions to time limit provisions for refund.Analysis:The petitioner challenged the vires of Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as being ultra vires to the Constitution. Additionally, the petitioner sought a direction to set aside a deficiency memo dated 04.12.2020. The petitioner claimed a refund of the accumulated credit in the ledger account, which was contested on grounds of being time-barred. The competent authority issued a show cause notice and allowed the petitioner to respond within 15 days. The petitioner contended that the refund claim was not subject to the limitation period, and the assistant commissioner had not yet made a final decision on the refund claim.The Supreme Court's decision in Union of India and others Vs. VKC Footsteps India Pvt. Ltd., 2021 SCC Online SC 706, upholding the vires of the statutory provisions under consideration, was noted. The court determined that the petitioner's challenge to the statutory provisions should cease based on this development. However, the petitioner's counsel argued for the application of COVID-related extensions to time limit provisions for refunds, without a corresponding prayer or pleading for such a declaration. As a result, the court declined to address this issue in the present petition.The court directed the assistant commissioner to decide on the petitioner's refund claim, taking into account the petitioner's reply and any additional grounds that may be raised within one week. If further replies are submitted, the authority must consider them before making a final decision. The court disposed of both petitions with these observations and directions, emphasizing the need for the assistant commissioner to consider all relevant information in reaching a decision on the refund claim.