2024 (5) TMI 1089 - HC - GST

Tax Refund Claim Denied: Petitioner Directed to Pursue Statutory Alternative Remedy Through Proper Appellate Channels

HC dismissed writ petition challenging tax refund claim rejection. Court held that the petitioner should pursue statutory alternative remedy through ... Maintainability of petition - availability of statutory alternative remedy - Rejection of refund of tax - relevant date - rejection on the ground that the taxpayer failed to meet the deadline for submitting the application on 29.02.2024 - whether the petitioner’s application was within the period of two years from the relevant date or not? - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has got the statutory alternative remedy of appeal against the order of rejection of claim for refund. The argument as advanced, is not such an argument, which cannot be taken before the appellate authority. The ‘relevant date’ requires determination in view of Section 54 (14), explanation 2 (a) (i) of the Act on consideration of the documents, as submitted, filed by the petitioner, to arrive a conclusion, on what date the ship in which goods were loaded left India. In the exercise of the writ jurisdiction, this Court considers it not appropriate, at this stage to determine such question which is a disputed question of fact and requires for its determination the evidence. The said exercise, can be done effectively by the appellate authority. Consequently, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. This Writ Petition is dismissed, on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy. Issues Involved: The judgment deals with a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the rejection of a refund claim for the tax period January 2022 to March 2022 based on the interpretation of the 'relevant date' prescribed in Section 54 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017.Summary of Judgment:Issue 1: Rejection of Refund ClaimThe petitioner challenged the rejection of the refund claim for the tax period January 2022 to March 2022, citing failure to meet the deadline for submitting the application. The rejection was based on the deadline for filing the application within two years from the relevant date, which ended on 21.03.2024. The petitioner argued that the application was within the prescribed period as per Section 54(1) read with explanation 2(a)(i) of the CGST Act.Issue 2: Consideration of DocumentsThe petitioner contended that the necessary documents were submitted but not considered by the authority. It was argued that if the documents had been taken into account, the date of the refund application would fall within the two-year period from the relevant date.Issue 3: Availability of Statutory RemedyThe Court noted that the petitioner had the statutory alternative remedy of appeal against the rejection of the refund claim. It was emphasized that the determination of the 'relevant date' required consideration of evidence and was a disputed question of fact best addressed by the appellate authority. Therefore, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition, directing the petitioner to pursue the statutory alternative remedy.In conclusion, the Writ Petition was dismissed, allowing the petitioner to approach the appellate forum or competent authority as advised, based on the deficiency memo provided. No costs were awarded, and any pending miscellaneous petitions were to be closed accordingly.