2025 (1) TMI 50 - HC - GST

Refund ordered for voluntarily mistaken Rs.40,00,000 electronic cash ledger deposit; Section 54(1) CGST Act limitation inapplicable, no interest payable

Messrs Aalidhra Texcraft Engineers & Anr. Versus Union Of India & Ors.

HC allowed the petition and quashed the order rejecting a refund claim, holding that a voluntarily deposited mistaken payment of Rs. 40,00,000 from the ... Rejection of refund claim of the petitioner on the ground of limitation - mismatch between the figures of ITC relatable to integrated tax paid on imports, which was auto populated in Form of GSTR-2A and monthly returns filed in Form GSTR-3B returns - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the petitioner deposited amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- by mistake on 20.11.2020 voluntarily which was neither towards any tax, interest or penalty. The similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in case of M/s. Joshi Technologies International [2016 (6) TMI 773 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] as well as in case of M/S. GUJARAT STATE POLICE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR. [2024 (1) TMI 1409 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], wherein it is held by this Court that 'the amount of GST paid by the petitioner is admittedly paid as a self assessment, which the petitioner was not required to pay as per the Notification No. 32/2017. Accordingly, in the facts of the case, the amount paid by the petitioner from electronic cash ledger is required to be refunded by the respondent authority and could not have been rejected on the ground of limitation under Section 54 (1) of the CGST Act.' In view of above analysis made in the aforesaid judgment which is squarely applicable to the facts of the case, more particularly when the petitioner has deposited voluntarily the amount of Rs. 40,00,000/-, the same would not be covered by the provisions of Section 54 of the GST Act and the same is required to be refunded by the respondent authorities as the same could not have been rejected on the ground of limitation under Section 54 (1) of the GST Act. However, the petitioner will not be entitled to any interest on such amount as the same was deposited voluntarily by mistake and therefore, the respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner. The impugned order dated 14. 6. 2024 passed by the respondent No. 2 rejecting the refund application of the petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside - petition allowed. Issues Involved:1. Whether the refund claim of Rs. 40,00,000/- deposited voluntarily by the petitioner is time-barred under Section 54(1) of the GST Act.2. Whether the voluntary payment made by the petitioner falls under the purview of Section 54 of the GST Act.3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the refunded amount.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Refund Claim Time-Barred:The primary issue in this case was whether the refund claim filed by the petitioner was time-barred under Section 54(1) of the GST Act, which prescribes a limitation period of two years for filing a refund application. The petitioner argued that the payment of Rs. 40,00,000/- was not made towards any tax liability but was a voluntary payment made due to a mistaken belief of excess ITC availed. The petitioner contended that the limitation period under Section 54(1) should not apply to voluntary payments. The court referred to previous judgments, including M/s. Joshi Technologies International and Gujarat State Police Housing Corporation Ltd., which held that amounts paid by mistake are not subject to the statutory limitation period for refunds under the GST Act. The court concluded that the refund claim was not time-barred as the payment was not made as tax but was a voluntary deposit.2. Voluntary Payment Under Section 54:The court examined whether the voluntary payment made by the petitioner could be classified under Section 54 of the GST Act. It was determined that the payment was not made towards any tax, interest, or penalty, and therefore, did not fall within the scope of Section 54. The court emphasized that the amount deposited by the petitioner was not a tax liability but a mistaken payment. Consequently, the provisions of Section 54, including the limitation period, were deemed inapplicable to the voluntary payment made by the petitioner.3. Entitlement to Interest:The petitioner sought interest on the refunded amount. However, the court ruled that since the payment was made voluntarily by mistake and not as a tax, the petitioner was not entitled to any interest on the refunded amount. The court directed the respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- without interest, as the payment was not made under any compulsion or as a result of a tax liability.Conclusion:The court quashed the impugned order dated 14.06.2024, which rejected the refund application of the petitioner on the ground of limitation. The court directed the respondent authorities to refund the amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner by mistake within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The court made it clear that the petitioner would not be entitled to any interest on the refunded amount.