TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Bombay HC Allows Refund Application Despite Delay, Citing CBITC Notification Extending Limitation Period u/s 54(1) CGST Act.</h1> <h3>M/s. Pooja Engineering Co. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors.</h3> M/s. Pooja Engineering Co. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. - 2025:BHC - OS:597 - DB The Bombay High Court, comprising Justices B. P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, addressed a Writ Petition challenging an order dated 27th May 2021, which rejected the Petitioner's Refund Application for 25 export transactions. The rejection was based on the application being filed beyond the two-year limitation period prescribed under Section 54(1) of the CGST Act, 2017.The Petitioner's counsel highlighted a notification dated 5th July 2022 from the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBITC), which excludes the period from 1st March 2020 to 28th February 2022 from the limitation period calculation. This adjustment brought the Petitioner's refund requests within the permissible period.The Respondent's counsel acknowledged this notification and agreed that the impugned order could be set aside, allowing the matter to be remanded to the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax for re-evaluation.The Court quashed the order of 27th May 2021, reinstated the Refund Application, and directed the Deputy Commissioner to process it on its merits, disregarding the limitation issue. The Writ Petition was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs. The order will be digitally signed and disseminated via fax or email.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
