TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Excess GST payment refund cannot be rejected on limitation grounds when corrected application filed after removing deficiencies</h1> <h3>M/s. Global Health Ltd. Versus Union of India and ors.</h3> M/s. Global Health Ltd. Versus Union of India and ors. - TMI Issues involved:The issues involved in the judgment are the rejection of a refund claim by the petitioner, the validity of Rule 90(3) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017, and the application of the limitation period for filing refund applications.Refund Claim Rejection:The petitioner mistakenly paid excess SGST under reverse charge mechanism while filing form GSTR-3B for September 2017. The petitioner filed a refund application for the excess amount, but it was rejected by the authorities as time-barred, leading to subsequent appeal and the present writ petition.Validity of Rule 90(3) of CGST Rules, 2017:The petitioner challenged the validity of Rule 90(3) of the CGST Rules, which requires the filing of a fresh refund application post rectification of deficiencies. The court referred to a judgment where it was observed that deficiencies raised in a deficiency memo should not render the original application as non est if the application is not deficient in material particulars and is accompanied by necessary documentary evidence.Application of Limitation Period:The court held that the petitioner's second refund application, filed after rectifying deficiencies, could not have been rejected on the ground of being time-barred. The court emphasized that since the initial refund application was filed within the limitation period, subsequent applications post rectification should not be rejected based on the limitation period.The judgment allowed the petition, setting aside the orders rejecting the refund claim and remanding the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration in line with the court's observations.
TaxTMI 