Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, for the purpose of limitation under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, a fresh refund application filed after rectification of deficiencies under Rule 90(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 must be treated as filed on the date of the original application.
Analysis: Section 54 permits a refund claim to be made within the prescribed period from the relevant date. Rule 90(3) requires a fresh application after deficiencies in the original refund application are pointed out, but the rule does not provide that the date of the fresh application becomes the operative date for computing limitation under Section 54. The statutory scheme therefore supports treatment of the corrected application as continuing from the original refund claim, rather than as a new claim attracting a fresh limitation bar.
Conclusion: The rejection of the refund claim as time-barred on the basis of the second application date was unsustainable, and the refund application had to be treated as filed on the date of the original application.
Ratio Decidendi: A fresh refund application filed after removal of defects under Rule 90(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 does not reset limitation under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.