Refund application filed online within limitation period cannot be rejected for subsequent document deficiencies

The Bombay HC allowed the petitioner's application challenging rejection of a refund claim on limitation grounds. The court held that filing the refund application online was permissible under revenue circulars, and once properly filed within limitation, subsequent document deficiencies constituted curable defects that could not affect the filing date. The court noted that authorities failed to consider the valid online filing and that even document submission delays were covered by SC's COVID-19 limitation extensions. The refund application dated 13 September 2019 was restored to the Deputy Commissioner for adjudication on merits within eight weeks.

---

---

Issues involved:
The challenge to an order rejecting a refund application under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act based on limitation period calculation.

Summary:
The petitioner filed a refund application under Section 54(3) of the CGST Act for an amount of Rs. 9,98,64,611/- for a specific period. The application was initially not considered, leading to a notice of rejection by the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner contended for exclusion of a specific period for calculating the limitation period, citing relevant notifications and Supreme Court orders. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the application as barred by limitation, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner argued non-application of mind by the authorities, citing the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and inadequacies in considering circulars. The petitioner sought relief based on a previous court order in a similar case. The department supported the impugned orders, acknowledging the direction in the previous court order to consider the refund application on merits.

Upon review, the court found substance in the petitioner's contentions. It noted that the online filing of the application was permissible under revenue circulars, and any subsequent deficiencies were curable defects that did not affect the application's initial filing within the limitation period. The court emphasized that the extension of limitation period by Supreme Court orders applied to both filing of documents and the refund application itself. The authorities had overlooked these issues in rejecting the application. The court also highlighted that in a previous case involving the petitioner, the authorities had accepted court orders directing consideration of the refund application on merits. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashing the impugned order and directing the Deputy Commissioner to adjudicate the application on its merits within a specified timeframe. All contentions on the merits of the refund application were kept open.

Separate Judgement:
None.

---