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 the relevant date for limitation period calculation and did not consider COVID-19 pandemic exclusions. The HC set aside rejections for periods April 2018-March 2019 and April 2019-December 2019, directing the Assistant Commissioner to re-examine claims afresh on both limitation and merits after establishing the proper relevant date under Section 54's explanation.

---

---

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.

---