Refund limitation extended by association litigation applied to continuing member, making the refund claim timely.

A refund claim was held not to be time-barred where the High Court had directed refund applications to be filed within one year from 14.03.2018. The Tribunal ruled that the extended limitation could not be denied merely because the appellant was not an individual party to the writ proceedings, since the appellant had been a continuing member of the association and was covered by the association's litigation. The contrary view, that the appellant fell outside the High Court's direction, was found unsustainable. Unjust enrichment was not pressed as a surviving objection, and the refund rejection was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation, and whether the limitation period directed by the High Court in the association's litigation applied to the appellant as a continuing member of the association.

Analysis: The refund claim arose from the High Court's direction that refund applications be filed within one year from 14.03.2018. The Tribunal held that the authorities could not deny the benefit of that extended period merely on the ground that the appellant was not individually a party to the writ proceedings, when the appellant was shown to have been a member of the association since 09.04.2009 and the membership continued. The reasoning that the appellant was outside the scope of the High Court's direction was found unsustainable, particularly when the same date of the Supreme Court's judgment could not be used against the appellant on a party-based exclusion theory. The Tribunal also noticed that unjust enrichment had not been pressed as a surviving ground against the refund claim.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not time-barred, the extended limitation applied to the appellant, and the rejection of refund was set aside in favour of the assessee.

---