TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the refund applications rejected solely on the ground of limitation were within time in view of the circular excluding the specified period for computation of limitation under the GST regime. (ii) Whether the rejection orders required to be quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration with consequential directions.
Issue (i): Whether the refund applications rejected solely on the ground of limitation were within time in view of the circular excluding the specified period for computation of limitation under the GST regime.
Analysis: The refund applications were filed under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court noted the circular dated 5 July 2022 excluding the period from 1 March 2020 to 28 February 2022 for computation of limitation for refund applications under Sections 54 and 55 of the CGST Act, with retrospective effect from 1 March 2020. On that basis, the applications appeared to have been filed within time.
Conclusion: The rejection of the refund claims on the sole ground of delay could not be sustained.
Issue (ii): Whether the rejection orders required to be quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration with consequential directions.
Analysis: Since the limitation objection could not stand on the record, the rejection orders were set aside and the refund applications were directed to be reconsidered. The Court also directed that if refund was to be refused, the petitioner must be given a personal hearing on prior notice, and it excluded interest for the intervening period from 1 August 2022 to 1 March 2024.
Conclusion: The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with directions for reconsideration and hearing.
Final Conclusion: The refund rejection was set aside and the dispute was sent back for fresh decision, while granting limited relief by directing reconsideration and regulating the period for any interest claim.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a limitation-exclusion circular applies retrospectively to refund claims under the CGST regime, a rejection based solely on delay cannot survive and the matter must be reconsidered on merits.
TaxTMI 
