Gujarat HC quashes ITC refund rejection, holds Section 54(1) limitation period applies despite Circular 181/13/2022

Gujarat HC allowed the petition challenging rejection of ITC refund claim. The petitioner filed refund application on 07.11.2022 for periods prior to 18.07.2022, which was within statutory limitation under Section 54(1). Following Patanjali Foods precedent, the court held that refund applications filed within limitation period cannot be rejected based on Circular No.181/13/2022-GST dated 10.11.2022, which improperly created two classes of refund applications. The court quashed the rejection order, ruling the refund claim maintainable.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter are:

• Whether the refund claim filed by the Petitioner for unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Section 54(3)(ii) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), pertaining to periods prior to the effective date of Notification No. 09/2022-Central Tax (dated 13.07.2022, effective 18.07.2022), is maintainable when filed after the said effective date but within the statutory limitation period.
• Whether the impugned Circular No. 181/13/2022-GST dated 10.11.2022, which clarifies and restricts the refund claims by imposing a cutoff based on the date of filing (post 18.07.2022), can be applied retrospectively to deny refund claims relating to periods prior to 18.07.2022.
• Whether the Circular can override or alter the statutory provisions of the CGST Act and the notifications issued thereunder, particularly with regard to limitation and eligibility for refund of unutilized ITC under an inverted duty structure.
• The legality and binding nature of the Circular on the revenue and taxpayers, and its impact on the Petitioner's refund claim.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Maintainability of Refund Claims Filed Post Effective Date of Notification No. 09/2022-Central Tax for Periods Prior to Such Date

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 54 of the CGST Act governs refund of tax, including unutilized ITC. Notification No. 09/2022-Central Tax (dated 13.07.2022, effective 18.07.2022) amended the refund provisions prospectively. The Petitioner relied on the extended limitation period provided under Notification No. 13/2022-Central Tax and Section 54(1) for filing refund claims. The decision in Patanjali Foods Ltd. v. Union of India and Priyanka Refineries Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner ST were cited as authoritative precedents supporting the Petitioner's position.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court recognized that the Petitioner's refund application dated 07.11.2022 was filed within the prescribed limitation period as extended by Notification No. 13/2022-Central Tax. The Court observed that Notification No. 09/2022-Central Tax was prospective and did not explicitly bar refund claims for periods prior to its effective date. The Court relied on the ratio in Patanjali Foods (Supra), which struck down similar restrictions imposed by Circular No. 181/13/2022-GST that differentiated refund claims based on the date of filing, rather than the tax period to which the claim related.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Petitioner produced a tabulated chart showing the relevant tax periods, corresponding dates, and limitation deadlines, demonstrating compliance with the statutory limitation. The acknowledgment of the refund application in Form GST RFD-02 confirmed the application was complete and eligible for consideration.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principle that a statutory right to refund, once accrued and within limitation, cannot be denied by subsequent administrative circulars or notifications unless explicitly provided by law. Since the refund claim related to tax periods prior to 18.07.2022 and was filed within limitation, the claim was maintainable.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Respondent contended that Circular No. 181/13/2022-GST and Notification No. 09/2022-Central Tax barred the refund claim because it was filed after 18.07.2022. The Court rejected this contention, holding that the Circular cannot impose retrospective effect or override the statutory provisions. The Respondent's reliance on the Circular was deemed legally improper.

Conclusions: The refund claim filed by the Petitioner for periods prior to 18.07.2022 is maintainable even if filed after that date, provided it is within the statutory limitation period.

Issue 2: Legality and Binding Effect of Circular No. 181/13/2022-GST Dated 10.11.2022

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Circulars issued by tax authorities serve as clarifications but cannot override or amend statutory provisions. The Court referred to the Patanjali Foods decision which invalidated paragraph 2(2) of the Circular No. 181/13/2022-GST for creating an impermissible classification of refund applications based on filing dates.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court found that the Circular sought to give retrospective effect to Notification No. 09/2022-Central Tax, which was not intended by the latter. It held that Circulars are binding on the revenue but not on taxpayers and cannot impose conditions contrary to the Act or Notifications. The Circular's attempt to deny refund claims filed after 18.07.2022 for periods prior to that date was held to be beyond the scope of the law.

Key Evidence and Findings: The impugned rejection order relied heavily on the Circular to deny the Petitioner's claim. The Court identified this reliance as erroneous, given the Circular's illegality as established in precedent.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principle that administrative instructions cannot curtail statutory rights or extend limitations retrospectively. The Circular's retrospective application was inconsistent with the CGST Act and Notifications.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Respondent argued the Circular clarified the Notification and was binding on the revenue. The Court acknowledged the binding nature on revenue but emphasized that the Circular cannot impose illegal restrictions or retrospective effects.

Conclusions: The Circular No. 181/13/2022-GST cannot legally bar refund claims filed within limitation for periods prior to 18.07.2022, and its retrospective application is invalid.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court's crucial legal reasoning is encapsulated in the following verbatim excerpts from the impugned order and judgment:

"As the applicant has filed refund claim on 07.11.2022 i.e. after 18.07.2022, the same is not admissible in light of clarification issued vide Circular No. 181/13/2022-GST dated 10.11.2022 read with Section 54(3)(ii) of the CGST Act 2017 read with Rule 89 of the CGST Rules 2017."

"The Noticee mainly contended that the restriction imposed vide Notification No. 09/2022-Central Tax (Rate) dated 13.07.2022 should be effective prospectively w.e.f. 18.07.2022 and not for the refund claims for the earlier period and it should not be on the basis of date of filing refund application; and the Circular No. 181/13/2022-GST dated 10.11.2022 is illegal and contrary to the provisions of law. However, I find that the said contention is not proper and legal, as the circular dated 10.11.2022 clarifies that such refund applications would not be allowed after 18.07.2022 which is in clarification to the Notification dated 13.07.2022 and not contrary to it. There is no mention in the Notification dated 13.07.2022 itself that such applications will be allowed after 18.07.2022. The Circular dated 10.11.2022 has been issued on the basis of Notification No. 09/2022-Central Tax (Rate) dated 13.07.2022 and it is binding on the revenue to follow the conditions laid down in the said Circular."

The Court, however, held this reasoning erroneous and quashed the impugned rejection order.

Core principles established include:

• A statutory right to refund under the CGST Act, once accrued and filed within limitation, cannot be denied by subsequent administrative circulars or notifications unless explicitly provided by law.
• Notifications amending tax provisions operate prospectively unless expressly stated otherwise.
• Circulars issued by tax authorities cannot impose retrospective restrictions or override statutory provisions.
• The limitation period prescribed under Section 54 and extended by Notifications governs the maintainability of refund claims, not the date of filing relative to subsequent notifications.

Final determinations on each issue are:

• The refund claim filed by the Petitioner on 07.11.2022 for periods prior to 18.07.2022 is maintainable as it was within the statutory limitation period.
• The impugned Circular dated 10.11.2022 is invalid insofar as it attempts to retrospectively deny refund claims filed after 18.07.2022 for earlier periods.
• The impugned order rejecting the refund claim on the basis of the Circular and Notification No. 09/2022-Central Tax is quashed and set aside.
• The Respondents are directed to reconsider the refund application afresh within twelve weeks in accordance with law.

---