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 the refund applications were filed within the limitation period under section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and whether the relevant date was governed by Explanation 2(d) or Explanation 2(h).
Analysis: The dispute turned on when the tax became refundable and when the excess tax could be ascertained. The settlement achieved through conciliation finally fixed the contractual value, thereby crystallising the quantum of excess tax paid. Explanation 2(h) is a residual provision and applies only where no other explanation governs. Explanation 2(d) applies where tax becomes refundable as a consequence of a judgment, decree, order or direction, and the settlement agreement reached in conciliation was treated as having final and binding effect akin to an arbitral award. On that basis, the date of finalisation of the settlement was the operative date for computing limitation under section 54.
Conclusion: Explanation 2(d) applied, and the refund applications filed after the conciliation settlement were within time.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a conciliation settlement finally determines the payable consideration and crystallises the excess tax paid, the relevant date for refund limitation under section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is the date of communication or finalisation of that settlement, not the earlier date of original tax payment.