2026 (1) TMI 204 - HC - GST

GST refund claim timing: limitation counted from original application, not revised filing after deficiency memo; rejection set aside.

Rejection of a GST refund claim as time-barred under s.54(3) CGST Act was held unsustainable because limitation must be computed from the date of the ... Refund claim - rejection on the ground that the claim was filed beyond the period prescribed u/s 54(3) of the CGST Act - HELD THAT:- In the case of M/s. Amidc Automation Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs and Others [2026 (1) TMI 142 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], this Court has held that 'It is also relevant to state that though the respondent refers exclusion of time referred by the Apex Court relating to Covid-19 pandemic exigency in terms of Notification-13/2022 dated 05.07.2022, excluding period of limitation from March-2020 to February-2022. The said exclusion which would clearly enure to the benefit of the petitioner has not been considered or appreciated by respondent No.2, who erroneously rejected the claim of the petitioner as barred by limitation, which is contrary to law, provisions of the Act and the material on record, warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.' In the instant case, the undisputed material on record will indicate that the petitioner initially filed a refund application on 04.07.2024 which was well within the prescribed period as contemplated under Section 54(3) of the CGST Act and it was that date on which the petitioner filed the refund application has to be considered for the purpose of computing period of limitation and not subsequent revised refund application filed by the petitioner pursuant to the deficiency memo issued by the respondents, which is clearly incorrect and consequently, the said finding recorded by the respondents is erroneous and matter deserves to be quashed. The impugned orders are hereby set aside - Matter is remitted back for reconsideration of refund application filed by the petitioner afresh, in accordance with law, on merits - petition allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED (a) Whether a refund application initially filed within the prescribed two-year period under Section 54(3) of the CGST Act can be rejected as time-barred by reckoning limitation from a subsequent application filed after issuance of a deficiency memo. (b) Whether the appellate and original refund rejection orders, premised on limitation computed from the later re-filed application, suffer from an error warranting quashing and remand with a direction to decide the refund claim on merits without re-opening limitation. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue (a): Limitation for refund where an initial timely application is followed by a subsequent application pursuant to a deficiency memo Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court examined limitation in the context of Section 54(3) of the CGST Act and considered the significance of the date of filing of the refund application for computing the prescribed period. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court found, on undisputed material, that the petitioner's first refund application was filed on 04.07.2024 within two years from 26.07.2022 and therefore within the period contemplated under Section 54(3). A deficiency memo was thereafter issued, and a further refund application was filed on 14.08.2024. The Court held that, for limitation purposes, the relevant date is the initial filing date (04.07.2024) and not the subsequent application submitted pursuant to the deficiency memo. Treating the later re-filed application as the operative filing date for limitation was held to be 'clearly incorrect,' rendering the respondents' limitation finding erroneous. Conclusion: The refund claim could not be rejected as time-barred by computing limitation from the subsequent application filed after the deficiency memo when the initial application was filed within time. Issue (b): Validity of refund rejection and appellate orders based on the erroneous limitation approach; relief and remand Legal framework (as applied by the Court): The Court applied the principle that administrative and appellate orders founded on an incorrect computation of statutory limitation are liable to be quashed, and the matter may be remitted for decision on merits consistent with the Court's conclusion on limitation. Interpretation and reasoning: Since the respondents rejected the refund application on the ground of limitation by relying on the date of the later application filed after the deficiency memo, the Court concluded that both the refund rejection order and the appellate order were vitiated by the same foundational error. The Court further determined that limitation stood concluded in favour of the petitioner, and therefore reconsideration on remand must be undertaken 'without reference to the period of limitation.' Conclusion: The Court set aside both impugned orders and remitted the matter for fresh consideration of the refund application on merits, in accordance with law, with a binding direction that the claim shall not be rejected on limitation since limitation stands concluded in the petitioner's favour by the Court's order.