TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 142
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....NWD-1 Division, Bengaluru, the Respondent No. 2 in Form GST-RFD-06 dated 21.02.2025, bearing No. 141/2024-25, enclosed as "Annexure - S" for the reasons stated in the grounds; B. To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondent No. 2 to accept the refund application in FORM GST-RFD-01 which has been filed within the due date for the period JAN 2019 to March 2022 and thus grant refund of taxes in accordance with law along with the interest as applicable, without insisting on limitation and jurisdictional issues; C. To pass any such other Writ, Order or Direction as this Hon'ble Court might deem fit to be issued in the fact and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the impugned order in order to point out that the original applications filed by the petitioner was on 09.05.2023, which was well within the period of limitation and the same was not considered for the period from January-2019 to March-2021 and one more application dated 28.02.2024 for the period from January-2019 to March-2022, both were within the prescribed period of limitation, has been erroneously rejected by respondent No. 2 as barred by limitation. It is also submitted that though respondent No. 2 referred exclusion of time in favour of the petitioner by virtue of the decision of the Apex Court relating to Covid-19 pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efund claim is time barred. 11. On perusal of the reply dated: 18.02.2025 on the GST portal, I find that the claimant have stated that "The case is not time-barred; rather, there was a jurisdictional issue." 12. I find that the claimant have file the said refund application under Section 54 read with Section 77 of CGST Act, 2017 read with sub rule (1A) of Rule 89 of CGST Rules, 2017 read with Section 20 of IGST Act, 2017. 13. Section 77 of CGST Act, 2017 is reproduced below: "(1) A registered person who has paid the Central tax and State tax or, as the case may be, the Central tax and the Union territory tax on a transaction considered by him to be an intra-State supply, but which is subsequently held to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in 2 years from 24.9.2021 i.e., the refund claim should have been filed on or before 23.9.2023. iv. Further, I also find that Notification No. 13/2022-Central Tax dated: 05.07.2022 ha been issued providing relaxation in time limit for filing refund application on account of COVID crisis and the period from March, 2020 to February, 2022 has been excluded for computing the time limit. The same is reproduced below: ii. ...... iii. ...... iv. "excludes the period from the 1st day of March, 2020 to the 28th day of February, 2022 for computation of period of limitation for filing refund application under section 54 or section 55 of the said Act." 15. On plain reading of the above-discussed provisions, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....JKUMAR SAMADHI ROAD, GORGUNTEPALYA, BANGALORE - 560022 for an amount of Rs. 1,97,60,852/- (IGST-Rs. 97,33,753/-, CGST-Rs. 49,45,284/- & SGST-Rs. 50,81,815/-) for the period January, 2019 to March, 2022 as 'Time-barred.' 7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the undisputed fact borne out from the material on record is that the petitioner has initially filed refund application as long back as on 09.05.2023 well within the period of limitation for the period from January-2019 to March-2021 and the same has not been considered by passing the impugned order. So also, despite specifically stating at paragraph No.15 that the refund claim ought to have been filed on or before 28.02.2024 by the petitioner for the peri....