TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 494
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er Clause (c) and to correct the date of third refund application mentioned as '3.9.2020' as '30.9.2020'. Amendment be carried out within a period of two days from today. Re-verification is dispensed with. 2. Rule. 3. Mr.Bubna, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 and Mr.Bangur, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 waives service of notice. By consent of learned counsel for the parties, Petition is heard finally. 4. By this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks declaration that, Rule 90(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 is ultra vires the Constitution of India and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and consequently strike down the same. The Petitioner also a seeks w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Hon'ble Supreme Court on 23rd March 2020 in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (Order dated 23rd March 2020), reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 343, in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020, and more particularly paragraph Nos.2 and 3 which read thus :- "2. To obviate such difficulties and to ensure that lawyers/litigants do not have to come physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunals across the country including this Court, it is hereby ordered that a period of limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or Special Laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended w.e.f. 15th March 2020 till further order/s to be passed by this Court in presen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xtension of Limitation passed on 23rd March 2020 the Madras High Court has extended the period of limitation in case of refund application in similar circumstances. 11. Mr.Bangur, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 invited our attention to the reasons recorded by the Respondent No.2 while rejecting the two refund applications filed by the Petitioner and submits that, since those two applications were full of deficiencies, were rightly rejected by the Respondent No.2. He submits that, the third refund application was required to be filed within the period of two years under Circular dated 18th November 2019 under Section 54(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. He submits that the third refund application was admittedly filed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid Circular under Section 54(1) also stood excluded. 14. In our view, the Respondent No.2 is also bound by the said Order dated 23rd March 2020 and the Order dated 23rd September 2021 and is require to exclude the period of limitation falling during the said period. Since the period of limitation for filing the third refund application fell between the said period 15th March 2020 and 2nd October 2021, the said period stood excluded. The third refund application filed by the Petitioner thus was within the period of limitation prescribed under the said Circular dated 18th November 2019 read with Section 54(1) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017. In our view, the impugned Order passed by the Respondent No.2 is contrary to the Order p....