2022 (2) TMI 1048 - HC - GST

Refund Claim Rejection Overturned as Supreme Court's COVID Limitation Period Extension Prevails Over Government Deadline

The HC set aside the rejection of petitioner's refund claim for tax period April 2018-February 2019. While respondents argued the application filed on ... Refund of IGST - rejection on the ground of time limitation - whether rejection of the claim of the petitioner for refund for the period April, 2018 to February, 2019 on the ground that the same was filed beyond the statutory period and not extended or covered as per the Government notifications, is proper? - HELD THAT:- The Court finds that the order impugned needs interference. The rejection of the claim has been solely on the ground that as per the Notification of the Central Government No.91/20 dated 14.12.2020, the time was extended only till 31.03.2021 for the activities which fell within the dates 20.03.2020 to 30.03.2021. The Court would note that such Notification is dated 14.12.2020 that is much prior to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 29.03.2021. Moreover, it need not be overemphasized that the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court would finally hold the field and in the present case, when the Hon’ble Supreme Court in IN RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION [2022 (1) TMI 385 - SC ORDER] has clearly indicated that any computing of period of limitation for any such appeal, application of proceeding the period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall stand excluded and in the present case admittedly the application for refund having been filed on 12.05.2021, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of such order. The matter is remanded to the respondent no.1 to pass fresh orders on the claim of the petitioner in terms of his application dated 12.04.2021 - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues:Claim for refund rejection based on statutory period extension due to pandemic.Analysis:The petitioner sought relief against the rejection of the refund claim for the tax period April 2018 to February 2019. The rejection was based on the application being filed beyond the statutory period and not extended as per government notifications. The key issue was whether this rejection was justified.The petitioner argued that due to the pandemic, the application could not be filed within the stipulated time frame, relying on a Supreme Court order extending the period of limitation. The Supreme Court's order excluded the period from 15.03.2020 to 02.10.2021, making the petitioner's filing on 12.04.2021 valid.In response, the respondents contended that the application was filed after the extended period mentioned in the government notification, which was until 31.03.2021. They referenced a Central Government notification extending time until 31.03.2021 for activities between 20.03.2020 and 30.03.2021, arguing that the petitioner was not entitled to a refund.After evaluating the submissions, the Court found the rejection of the claim unjustified. The Court emphasized that the Supreme Court's order on limitation periods prevailed over the government notification. As the petitioner's application fell within the period excluded by the Supreme Court, they were entitled to the benefit of the order.Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the respondent to reevaluate the petitioner's claim based on the application filed on 12.04.2021. The Court directed prompt action within two months from the date of receiving the order copy, with no costs imposed. Any related pending petitions were also disposed of accordingly.