2025 (2) TMI 501 - HC - GST

Refund claims for GST on notice-pay recoveries not time-barred under Section 54; limitation runs from 03.08.2022 circular

HC held that refund claims for GST paid on notice-pay recoveries were not time-barred because the limitation under Section 54 runs from Circular dated ... Refund claims for GST paid on notice pay recovery were time-barred under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act - HELD THAT:- From Circular No. 178/10/2022-GST dated 03.08.2022, it is clear that the Government of India has clarified that the forfeiture of salary or payment of bond amount in the event of an employee leaving the employment before the minimum agreed period, was not taxable, inasmuch as, there was no supply of service by the employer in this situation and therefore, the recovery of notice pay by the employer was not taxable under the CGST Act. Since the aforesaid Circular came out on 03.08.2022, it has to be said that the petitioners could not have had the opportunity of filing of the refund claims in respect of the GST deposited by the Petitioner-Company, till such date. Therefore, the period of two years, for filing a claim, within the meaning of Section 54 of the CGST Act has to be computed from the date of the Circular i.e. from 03.08.2022. In that view of the matter, the refund claims dated 05.11.2022 and 07.11.2022, for whatever period of tax deposited, cannot be said to be time barred. This Court in the case of M/S Gujarat State Police Housing Corporation Ltd. Versus Union of India & Anr [2024 (1) TMI 1409 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] where it was held that 'Considering the above dictum of law, 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.' Conclusion - The State is not entitled to unjustly enrich itself with amounts collected from citizens which are not sanctioned as 'Tax' within the meaning of Article 265 of the Constitution of India. The taxes collected without legal authority must be refunded. Petition allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Court were:Whether the petitioner's refund claims for GST paid on notice pay recovery were time-barred under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act.Whether the amounts collected as GST on notice pay recovery were refundable given the clarification provided by the Government's Circular No. 178/10/2022-GST.Whether the retention of GST amounts by the State was in violation of Article 265 of the Constitution of India, which mandates that no tax shall be levied or collected except by the authority of law.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Time-barred Refund ClaimsRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 54 of the CGST Act provides a two-year limitation period for filing refund claims from the date of payment of tax. The Court also referenced Notification No. 13/2022, which excluded the period from 01.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 from the limitation calculation due to the COVID-19 pandemic.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court interpreted that the limitation period should be calculated from the date of the Government's Circular (03.08.2022) clarifying that GST on notice pay recovery was not applicable. Therefore, the refund claims filed on 05.11.2022 and 07.11.2022 were within the permissible period.Key Evidence and Findings: The Circular clarified that the amounts recovered as notice pay were not taxable under the CGST Act. The petitioners filed refund claims soon after this clarification.Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principle that the limitation period should commence from the date of the Circular, not from the date of tax payment, as the tax was paid under a mistaken belief.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents argued that the claims were time-barred based on the original tax payment dates. The Court rejected this argument, emphasizing the mistaken belief under which the taxes were paid.Conclusions: The Court concluded that the refund claims were not time-barred and should be processed based on the new commencement date of the limitation period.Issue 2: Refundability of GST on Notice Pay RecoveryRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Article 265 of the Constitution of India, which prohibits the collection of tax without legal authority, was central to this issue. The Court also referred to past judgments emphasizing the refund of taxes collected without authority.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court reasoned that since the Circular clarified the non-taxability of notice pay recovery, the amounts collected as GST were not sanctioned by law and thus refundable.Key Evidence and Findings: The Circular explicitly stated that the amounts recovered as notice pay were not taxable as they did not constitute a supply of service.Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied Article 265 to determine that the State's retention of the GST amounts was unconstitutional as the tax was collected without authority.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents contended that the refund claims were invalid due to the time-bar issue. However, the Court focused on the constitutional mandate against unauthorized tax collection.Conclusions: The Court concluded that the amounts collected as GST should be refunded to the petitioner, as they were collected without legal authority.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSCore Principles Established: The Court established that the limitation period for refund claims should be calculated from the date of governmental clarification on tax applicability, not from the original tax payment date, when taxes were paid under a mistaken belief.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Court quashed the impugned order rejecting the refund claims and directed the respondent to refund the amount of Rs. 15,90,288/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing the refund application until the date of actual payment.Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: 'The State is not entitled to unjustly enrich itself with amounts collected from citizens which are not sanctioned as 'Tax' within the meaning of Article 265 of the Constitution of India.'The Court emphasized the principle that taxes collected without legal authority must be refunded, aligning with the constitutional mandate and prior judicial precedents.