2024 (3) TMI 1029 - HC - GST

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 ... Input Tax Credit - refund under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - limitation period exclusion - Notification No. 13/2022 dated 05.07.2022 - adjudication by the Proper OfficerRefund under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Input Tax Credit - Petitioner permitted to file an appropriate refund application under Section 54 claiming refund of tax paid on invoices for which the supplier also claimed Input Tax Credit. - HELD THAT: - The Court noted that the Respondent declined to consider the claim on the ground that the Petitioner had not filed the requisite refund application under Section 54. In response, Petitioner undertook to file the appropriate application within one week. Having accepted that undertaking, the Court disposed of the petition by permitting the Petitioner to file the refund application as mandated by Section 54, without expressing any view on the merits of the underlying claim. The direction is procedural and enables the statutory remedy to be invoked and adjudicated by the competent authority. [Paras 4, 6]Petitioner allowed to file the refund application under Section 54; petition disposed accordingly.Limitation period exclusion - Notification No. 13/2022 dated 05.07.2022 - adjudication by the Proper Officer - Period from 19.01.2024 until the date of the order excluded for the purposes of limitation; Proper Officer to consider Petitioner's entitlement under Notification No.13/2022 while entertaining the refund application. - HELD THAT: - Petitioner relied on Notification No.13/2022 (05.07.2022) which provides exclusion of the period 01.03.2020 to 28.02.2023 for computation of limitation for filing refund applications under Sections 54 and 55. The Court directed that the period between the filing of the petition (19.01.2024) and the date of the order shall be excluded for limitation purposes, and expressly recorded that the Proper Officer shall consider whether the Petitioner is covered by Notification No.13/2022 in accordance with law when adjudicating the refund application. The Court did not decide the substantive applicability of the Notification or the merits of the refund claim, leaving these questions for fresh consideration and adjudication by the Proper Officer. [Paras 5, 6, 7]Limitation period from 19.01.2024 to date excluded; Proper Officer to consider the Notification No.13/2022 claim and adjudicate the refund application in accordance with law.Final Conclusion: Petition disposed of by permitting the Petitioner to file the statutory refund application under Section 54; the period from 19.01.2024 until the date of the order is excluded for limitation, and the Proper Officer is directed to consider the Petitioner's claim, including coverage under Notification No.13/2022, and adjudicate the refund application on merits in accordance with law; the Court has not adjudicated the substantive merits. 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.