TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 286
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the petitioner's appeal against rejection of the refund application by the Deputy Commissioner, Division-IV of GST and Central Excise, Mumbai East, has been rejected. 3. The relevant facts need to be noted:- The petitioner filed an application under Section 54(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (for short, "CGST Act") for refund of an amount of Rs. 9,98,64,611/- for the period from April 2018 to March 2019. The limitation for making a refund claim as per the provisions of Section 54, would be two years. Such application initially was not being considered by the Deputy Commissioner for which the petitioner made several representations. Pursuant thereto, on 02 March, 2022, the petitioner received a notice for rejection of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iling the impugned orders would submit that there is non-application of mind, by the forums below to the basic facts as involved in the proceedings, that the refund application as filed by the petitioner on 13 September, 2019 was well within the period of limitation. It is submitted that the intervening period, was affected by the Covid-19 Pandemic, in regard to which, the Supreme Court had taken suo-moto cognizance to extend the period of limitation by order passed on 23 March, 2020 in the proceedings of Suo- Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 (supra). The petitioner also submitted that the purport of the circulars dated 15 November, 2017, 15 March, 2018 and 04 September, 2018 and the final circular dated 28 June, 2019 have also not been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed from the stage of issuance of Form GST-RFD-08. Order accordingly. 8. The Deputy Commissioner will give opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and thereafter proceed to pass appropriate order as per law after taking into consideration the observations made above." 7. On the other hand, Mr. Ochani, learned counsel for the department has supported the impugned orders. He would, however, submit that in the facts of the present case the forums below could have taken into consideration the orders passed by the Supreme Court as also the purport of the circulars. He would also not dispute that in the petitioner's own case as noted above, this Court had directed the authorities to consider the petitioner's refund application on merits thou....