https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446549 HC held that the two-year limitation under Section 54(1) of the CGST Act for filing refund claims is directory, not mandatory. In the context of a refund claim for IGST paid on ocean freight under RCM, the Court followed its earlier ruling that, where reasons are furnished for delay, the authority must consider them and condone the delay rather than reject the claim mechanically on limitation. Finding that the refund had been denied solely on limitation grounds, the HC set aside the impugned order dated 24.09.2023 and disposed of the petition with directions consistent with its interpretation of Section 54(1). en-us Tue, 28 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Dec 2025 14:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446549 HC held that the two-year limitation under Section 54(1) of the CGST Act for filing refund claims is directory, not mandatory. In the context of a refund claim for IGST paid on ocean freight under RCM, the Court followed its earlier ruling that, where reasons are furnished for delay, the authority must consider them and condone the delay rather than reject the claim mechanically on limitation. Finding that the refund had been denied solely on limitation grounds, the HC set aside the impugned order dated 24.09.2023 and disposed of the petition with directions consistent with its interpretation of Section 54(1). Case-Laws GST Tue, 28 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446549