2022 (10) TMI 46 - HC - GST

Refund claim under Section 54 CGST Act remanded considering Government Circular extending filing deadline to September 2023

Axis Bank Limited Mr. Jala Ramesh Chamarthy Versus The Union of India, The Goods and Service Tax Council, The Assistant Commissioner Central Tax

Axis Bank Limited Mr. Jala Ramesh Chamarthy Versus The Union of India, The Goods and Service Tax Council, The Assistant Commissioner Central Tax - TMI Issues Involved:1. Incorrect tagging of business premises and erroneous tax payments.2. Refund claim rejection due to being time-barred as per Section 54 of the CGST Act.3. Applicability of Circular No.162/18/2021-GST dated 25.09.2021 regarding refund claims.Detailed Analysis:1. Incorrect Tagging of Business Premises and Erroneous Tax Payments:The petitioner, a major private bank, registered under GST in Andhra Pradesh (AP) and Telangana (TL), faced issues due to incorrect tagging of some Telangana business premises to Andhra Pradesh during the GST system configuration. This error led to the wrong determination of the 'Location of Supplier' (LOS) as Andhra Pradesh instead of Telangana, while the 'Place of Supply' (POS) was correctly identified as Telangana. Consequently, Integrated GST (IGST) was incorrectly paid from the AP GST registration instead of Central GST (CGST) and State GST (SGST) from the TL registration. The bank identified this error in 2019 and corrected the tax payments by depositing the appropriate CGST and SGST in Telangana for the affected periods (July 2017 to August 2019) and reported the same via GST Form DRC 03.2. Refund Claim Rejection Due to Being Time-Barred as per Section 54 of the CGST Act:The petitioner filed refund applications for the IGST paid from the AP registration on 14.02.2020, amounting to Rs.16,90,41,709/-. The refund claim was rejected on the grounds that it was time-barred as per Section 54 of the CGST Act, which prescribes a two-year period for filing refund claims. The petitioner argued that the refund claim should not be considered time-barred based on a Circular dated 25.09.2021 issued by the Government of India, which provides clarity on the matter.3. Applicability of Circular No.162/18/2021-GST Dated 25.09.2021 Regarding Refund Claims:The petitioner contended that the Circular dated 25.09.2021 clarifies that refund claims under Sections 77(1) of the CGST Act and 19(1) of the IGST Act are not time-barred if the correct tax was paid before the issuance of the Circular. The Circular specifies that the term 'subsequently held' covers both scenarios where the taxpayer or tax officer identifies the correct tax head. The relevant date for claiming a refund is two years from the date of payment of tax under the correct head or two years from the date of the Circular for payments made before its issuance.The court acknowledged that the impugned order rejecting the refund claim was passed before the issuance of the Circular and that the respondents' counter was based solely on Section 54 of the CGST Act. The court concluded that the matter should be remanded back to the third respondent/Assistant Commissioner Central Tax to reconsider the refund application in light of the Circular No.162/18/2021-GST dated 25.09.2021 and pass orders accordingly.Conclusion:The writ petition was disposed of with directions to remand the matter back to the third respondent to re-evaluate the refund application considering the Circular issued by the Ministry of Finance. The court emphasized the need for the authority to address the applicability of the Circular and ensure compliance with the law. No costs were awarded, and any pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.