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>Limitation Bar on Revised Refund Claims Under Notification No. 02/2019-CT Set Aside for Fresh Consideration</h1> <h3>Piramal Enterprises Ltd. Through Authorized Signatory Shri Amit Jain Versus Union of India And Others</h3> The HC set aside the impugned orders dated 18.02.2021, 28.10.2020, and 27.01.2021 concerning revised refund claims barred by limitation under Notification ... Applicability of time limitation on revised refund claim - barred by limitation of time in view of the N/N. 02/2019-CT dated 29.01.2019 - HELD THAT:- Vide a common impugned order the application about refund for three different periods had been decided by the appellate authority and now the applicability of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of suo motu Petition (Civil) No.3/2020 [2021 (3) TMI 497 - SC ORDER] and Circular No.157/13/2021- GST and as per Notification No.13/2020 Central Tax dated 05.07.2022 are liable to be considered after the remand, therefore, it would be proper to remand all these three matters by disposing all the writ petitions to be decided afresh. If occasion so arises, the respondents shall be at liberty to raise all the grounds in a subsequent writ petition or any other proceedings. The impugned orders dated 18.02.2021 passed by the respondent No.2, 28.10.2020 passed by the respondent No.3 and 27.01.2021 passed by the respondent No.5 are hereby set aside. The matters are remanded back to the First Appellate Authority - petition allowed in part. ISSUES: Whether a revised refund claim under Section 54(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, read with Rule 89(4B) of the CGST Rules, 2017, can be barred by limitation in view of Notification No.02/2019-CT dated 29.01.2019.Whether the appellate authority's order setting aside refund claims on the ground of limitation is sustainable.Whether the matter requires remand for fresh adjudication in light of the Apex Court's suo motu Petition (Civil) No.3/2020, Circular No.157/13/2021-GST, and Notification No.13/2020 Central Tax dated 05.07.2022.Whether the appellate orders passed in respect of multiple refund claims for different periods can be decided separately or require common consideration. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The revised refund claim was held barred by limitation by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) relying on Notification No.02/2019-CT dated 29.01.2019.The appellate authority's order setting aside refund sanction orders dated 17.03.2020, 28.05.2020 on limitation grounds was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.The Court held that in view of the Apex Court's suo motu Petition (Civil) No.3/2020, Circular No.157/13/2021-GST, and Notification No.13/2020 Central Tax dated 05.07.2022, the matter requires reconsideration by the First Appellate Authority.All refund claims for different periods decided by a common impugned order should be remanded collectively for fresh adjudication, rejecting the contention that some matters be decided on merits while others be remanded.Impugned orders passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) and Assistant Commissioner in related writ petitions were set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication without expressing any opinion on merits. RATIONALE: The Court applied the provisions of Section 54(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, and Rule 89(4B) of the CGST Rules, 2017 concerning refund claims of utilized/accumulated input tax credit.The limitation aspect was considered in light of Notification No.02/2019-CT dated 29.01.2019, which restricts the time for claiming refunds.The Court relied on the Apex Court's suo motu Petition (Civil) No.3/2020 and Circular No.157/13/2021-GST, along with Notification No.13/2020 Central Tax dated 05.07.2022, which provide updated guidance on refund claims and limitation, necessitating re-examination of the matter.The Court emphasized the need for consistent adjudication of refund claims decided by a common order and rejected piecemeal consideration to ensure uniformity and proper application of law.No comments were made on the substantive merits of the refund claims, maintaining judicial restraint pending fresh adjudication.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
