2023 (1) TMI 792

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the Respondents : Shri Prasanna Prasad, Learned Counsel ORDER Heard finally with the consent of both the parties. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: (a) to call for the relevant records of the case from the respondents. (b) to set aside the impugned refund rejection order dated 04.01.2021(Annexure P-2) passed by Respondent no.3 as well as the impugned appellate order dated 24.08.2021(Annexure P-1) passed by Respondent No.2 in Appeal No. IND-CGST-000-APP- 069 2021-22, by a writ of CERTIORARI or any other appropriate writ, direction or order; (c) to command the Respondents to refund a sum of unutilised ITC of Rs. 1,34,670/....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ation. However, a deficiency memo was issued citing certain deficiencies. Petitioner filed an application on 18.11.2022 under ARN No. AA231120017468Q which came to be rejected by the respondent no. 3 citing non-compliance of the provisions of Circular No. 125/44/2019 -GST dated 18.11.2019 on the following two grounds: (a) the refund application has been filed after two years from the relevant date and therefore the same is inadmissible being time barred; (b) the certificate/declaration/list of invoice endorsed by the specified officer of the SEZ has not been appended and, therefore, the refund claim is inadmissible. 3. Accordingly, a notice of rejection of the application for refund under Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules, 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent no.3 rejected the application only on the ground of application being time barred and did not dwell upon the merits of the application. Hence, in view of the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court in respect of the limitation, the order passed by the respondent no.3 cannot be allowed to stand and the matter deserves to be relegated to the respondent no.2 to decide the appeal on merits. 7 . On the other hand, learned counsel Shri Prasanna Prasad appearing for respondent no.2 and 3 fairly admitted the mistake on the part of the respondents and admitted that the Circular No. 157/13/2021 - GST dated 20.07.2021 is not applicable to any other proceedings under the GST Laws except in r....