High Court Permits GST Refund Application Under Section 54, Excludes Limitation Period and Preserves Future Legal Rights

HC allowed petitioner to file a refund application under Section 54 of GST Act, excluding the period between petition filing and current date for limitation purposes. The Proper Officer was directed to process the claim under Notification No. 13/22 without prejudging the merits. All parties' rights were reserved for future proceedings.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issue involves seeking direction to grant Input Tax Credit, double payment made to the department, failure to file appropriate refund application as required under Section 54 of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017, and exclusion of time period for filing a refund application.

Input Tax Credit Dispute:
The Petitioner sought direction for the grant of Input Tax Credit that was paid on the same invoices for the period 2019-2020, on which Respondent No. 3 also paid the tax. It was argued that the Petitioner was coerced into depositing the tax as Respondent No. 3 had not filed returns within time, leading to double payment. The Petitioner sought a refund of the amount deposited on the said invoices.

Failure to File Refund Application:
The Respondent's counsel contended that the Petitioner's claim was not considered due to the failure to file an appropriate refund application as required under Section 54 of the Act. In response, the Petitioner agreed to file an appropriate application within one week, citing Notification No. 13/2022 to exclude specific periods for the computation of the limitation period.

Judgment:
The High Court disposed of the petition, allowing the Petitioner to file the required refund application as per Section 54 of the Act. The period between the filing of the petition and the current date was excluded for limitation purposes. The Proper Officer was directed to consider the Petitioner's claim under Notification No. 13/22 while processing the refund application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the parties' contentions.

Conclusion:
The petition was disposed of with the clarification that the Court did not assess the merits of the parties' arguments. The Proper Officer was tasked with adjudicating the Petitioner's refund claim in accordance with the law, with all rights and contentions of the parties reserved for future proceedings.

---