2022 (12) TMI 1036 - HC - GST

GST refund claim rejections quashed for failing to determine proper limitation period under Section 54

The Bombay HC quashed refund claim rejections under Section 54 of the Central GST Act, 2017. The court held that the impugned orders failed to determine ... Refund claim - rejection on the ground that they are time barred - Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Exclusion of certain period during Covid 19 pandemic - HELD THAT:- Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 deals with refund of tax. Section 54(1) states that if a refund is sought of any tax, then an application has to be made before the expiry of two years from the relevant date - The impugned orders make no reference to which category the Petitioner’s claims would fall and what would be the relevant date i.e. starting point for limitation period for the Petitioner’s claim for refund. For the purpose of ascertaining whether the limitation period in the Petitioner’s case stood extended/ protected by the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as above, first the relevant date for starting of the limitation will have to be established. The factual position as per the explanation to Section 54 as regards the Relevant Date will have to be determined first and then legal position as laid down in the above decisions can be applied - the impugned orders, to the extent of rejection of the refund claims of the Petitioner for the periods from April 2018 to March 2019 and from April 2019 to December 2019, are liable to be quashed and set aside and the applications for these two periods are to be restored to the file of the concerned Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner will examine the case of the Petitioner afresh both on the ground of limitation and on merits - Writ petition is disposed of. Issues:1. Refund claim for different periods.2. Rejection of refund claims as time-barred.3. Interpretation of limitation period under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.4. Application of Supreme Court order on extension of limitation.5. Quashing of impugned orders and restoration of refund applications.Analysis:1. The Petitioner challenged two orders by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX, dated 24 January 2022 and 22 February 2022, regarding refund claims for different periods: April 2018 to March 2019 and April 2019 to December 2019. 2. The Respondents rejected the refund claims for these periods as time-barred, citing Section 54(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which requires refund applications to be made within two years from the relevant date.3. The key issue was the determination of the 'relevant date' for starting the limitation period for refund claims, as per the explanation provided under Section 54. The impugned orders failed to specify the relevant category and starting point for the Petitioner's claims, leading to ambiguity.4. The Petitioner relied on a Supreme Court order extending the period of limitation due to the COVID-19 pandemic, as per Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3/2020. The Petitioner argued that this extension should apply to refund applications as well, citing precedents from the High Court and other judgments.5. The Court held that the impugned orders were deficient in establishing the starting and ending dates of the limitation period for each category under Section 54. Consequently, the Court quashed the orders rejecting the refund claims for the periods in question and directed the Assistant Commissioner to re-examine the claims on both limitation and merits within six weeks.6. The Court maintained the order granting refund to the Petitioner for the period from January 2020 to March 2020. The writ petition was disposed of, with the rule made absolute in favor of the Petitioner.This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, the legal provisions cited, and the Court's decision on the refund claims and extension of limitation period.