Paragraph 2(2) of 10.11.2022 circular struck down as ultra vires Section 54; discriminatory refund restriction quashed

HC allowed the petition and struck down para 2(2) of Circular dated 10.11.2022 as ultra vires Section 54 of the GST Act and violative of Article 14. The court held that applying Notification dated 13.7.2022 to refund applications filed after 13.7.2022 - even when the refunds relate to periods prior to that notification and were filed within the statutory limitation - created an arbitrary, discriminatory class of assessees. The restriction was therefore unjustified, prospective effect of the notification precluded denial of refunds, and the circular provision was quashed.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:

• Whether the restriction on refund claims as per Notification No. 9/2022-Central Tax, dated 13.07.2022, applies to all refund applications filed after the date of the notification, even if they pertain to a period before the notification.
• Whether the impugned order withdrawing the refund granted to the petitioner based on the circular dated 10.11.2022 is valid.
• Whether the issuance of a show cause notice under Section 73 of the GST Act for recovery of the refund is justified.
• Whether the circulars issued can be applied retrospectively or prospectively and their impact on the rights of the taxpayers.
• Whether the circulars and notifications are discriminatory and violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Application of Notification No. 9/2022 and Circular dated 10.11.2022

The relevant legal framework includes Section 54 of the GST Act, which deals with refunds, and the Notification No. 9/2022, which restricts refunds for certain goods. The Court interpreted that the notification is prospective, effective from 18.07.2022, and cannot apply to refund applications related to periods before this date. The Court found the circular dated 10.11.2022, which extended this restriction to all applications filed after 18.07.2022, irrespective of the period they pertain to, as arbitrary and discriminatory.

Key evidence includes the petitioner's refund application filed within the statutory period and the subsequent sanction of the refund. The Court applied the law to the facts, concluding that the petitioner's application was timely and should not be denied based on the circular's retrospective application.

The Court treated competing arguments by examining precedents, including the decision in Ascent Meditech Ltd., which struck down a similar provision for creating an artificial class based on the date of filing. The Court concluded that the circular's provision was ultra-vires Section 54 and violated Article 14 of the Constitution.

2. Validity of the Impugned Order and Show Cause Notice

The Court analyzed the issuance of the show cause notice under Section 73 and the subsequent order confirming the refund's recovery. The Court noted that the refund was granted after a quasi-judicial process and had attained finality as no appeal or revision was filed against it.

The Court reasoned that the respondents could not issue a show cause notice to reverse a final order in favor of the petitioner. The order-in-original confirming the demand was deemed illegal and unsustainable.

3. Retrospective vs. Prospective Application of Circulars

The Court relied on precedents, including Suchitra Components Ltd. and Himachal Aluminium Pvt. Ltd., to assert that beneficial circulars should apply retrospectively, while oppressive ones should apply prospectively. The Court found that the circular in question was not beneficial and thus should not apply retrospectively.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court held that the impugned para 2(2) of the Circular No. 181/13/2022-GST dated 10.11.2022 was struck down as it was ultra-vires Section 54 of the GST Act and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court stated, "The circular creates an artificial class amongst assessees based on the date of filing of refund application even though the refund application is filed within the statutory period of limitation and the refund is pertaining to the same period."

The Court concluded that the Order-in-Original dated 10.09.2024, confirming the demand for refund recovery, was illegal and unsustainable. The Court quashed and set aside this order, making the rule absolute to the extent discussed.

---