2023 (3) TMI 325 - HC - GST

Landmark GST Refund Claim: Limitation Period Extended, Petitioner Wins Right to Challenge Tax Authorities' Rejection

HC allowed the petitioner's refund claim, overturning the Assistant Commissioner's rejection based on limitation period. The court relied on previous ... Refund of GST - Rejection primarily on the ground that the refund claim is beyond the period of two years as prescribed under section 54 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The impugned order is set aside and matter of refund claim of the Petitioner restored to file of the Assistant Commissioner, who will examine the case of the Petitioner on the basis of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 and the subsequent orders passed in Suo Motu Petition. The Assistant Commissioner will consider the case of the Petitioner afresh, both on the ground of limitation and on merit. The requisite decision be taken within the period of six weeks from today. The writ petition is disposed off. Issues:1. Refund claim rejection based on limitation period under section 54 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.2. Interpretation of Circular No. 157/13/2021-GST and applicability of Hon'ble Supreme Court orders.3. Applicability of period of limitation extended by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 to refund claims.Analysis:1. The Petitioner challenged the order rejecting their refund claim, citing it was beyond the two-year period as per section 54 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The Assistant Commissioner based their decision on this ground, leading to the rejection of the refund claim.2. The Assistant Commissioner's interpretation of Circular No. 157/13/2021-GST was questioned. The Circular stated that statutory mechanism and time limits under the statute govern proceedings, indicating that Hon'ble Supreme Court orders might not apply to taxpayer compliances. This interpretation was examined in previous cases, where two Division Benches of the Court held that the period of limitation extended by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 also applies to refund claims.3. The Court referred to the cases of Saiher Supply Chain Consulting Pvt. Ltd. and Priceline.Com Technology India LLP, where it was established that the extended period of limitation from the Hon'ble Supreme Court's orders applied to refund claims. Despite a challenge by the Respondent - Union of India, the decision of the Division Bench in Saiher Supply Chain Consulting Pvt. Ltd. was upheld, leading to the restoration of the Petitioner's refund claim.4. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Assistant Commissioner to reconsider the Petitioner's case in light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's orders. The Assistant Commissioner was instructed to evaluate the case both on the grounds of limitation and merit within a stipulated period of six weeks, ensuring a fresh examination of the refund claim.5. The writ petition was disposed of with the above directions, providing relief to the Petitioner and emphasizing the application of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's orders in determining the validity of refund claims.