TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 204
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed by the Respondent No.1 bearing OIA No.15-16/2025-26 herein marked as Annexure-A. ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the Refund Sanction / Rejection Order in Form GST RFA-06 passed by the Respondent No.2 dated 03.10.2024 bearing Refund Sanction / Rejection Order Number ZD2910240053560 for the month of July 2022 herein marked as Annexure-B. iii) Issue writ of mandamus or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to accept and process the refund application in Form-GSTRFD-01 dated 14.08.2024 bearing Application Reference Number AA290824039923R herein marked as Annexure-C and grant the refund thereon in accordance with law. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the period from January-2019 to March-2021, to which respondent No.2 issued deficiency memo dated 01.06.2023 calling upon to fill up the deficiency before the proper jurisdictional authority. Subsequently, the petitioner filed one more application dated 04.08.2023 for the very same period January-2019 to March-2021 asking for the very same amount, to which also respondent No.2 issued deficiency memo with no specific reasons for rectification. Subsequently, on 28.02.2024, the petitioner filed one more application for the period from January-2019 to March-2022 to an additional amount, which was withdrawn by him on 16.04.2024 and rectified on 16.04.2024, to which the respondent issued a deficiency memo dated 30.04.2024 stating that the doc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d notification and as such, the impugned order may be set aside and respondent No.2 may be directed to consider the case on merits and proceed further in accordance with law. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it is necessary to extract the relevant paragraphs of the impugned order, which is as under: "8. In pursuance to the principles of Natural Justice Personal hearing was fixed at 11:15 AM on 13.02.2025 and the same was adjourned to 12:30 PM on 20.02.2025 on the request of the claimant. The authorized representatives of the claimant appeared for personal heari....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rson, claiming refund under section 77 of the Act of any tax paid by him, in respect of a transaction considered by him to be an intra-State supply, which is subsequently held to be an inter-State supply, may before the expiry of a period of two years from the date of payment of the tax on the inter-State supply, file an application electronically in FORM GST RFD-01 through the common portal, either directly or through a Facilitation Center notified by the Commissioner.: Provided that the said application may, as regard to any payment of tax on inter-State supply before coming into force of this sub-rule, be filed before the expiry of a period of two years from the date on which this sub-rule comes into force." 14. Provisi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e I find that the claimant have filed the said refund claim on 16.01.2025 whereas, they should have filed the refund claim on or before 28.02.2024. Hence, the instant refund claim is hit by time bar. 16. I find that the claimant have mentioned that there was not mistake on their part and that there was jurisdictional issue and that there was no error committed at their end. In this regard I draw attention to Trade Notice No. 01/2017 Central Tax dated: 20.06.2017 issued by the Principal Chief Commissioner, Bengaluru Zone, wherein, the jurisdiction of each Commissionerate has been mentioned with pin codes. The claimant could have gone through the said trade notice and seen that their unit is mapped in the correct jurisdiction, they c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....It is also relevant to state that though the respondent refers exclusion of time referred by the Apex Court relating to Covid-19 pandemic exigency in terms of Notification-13/2022 dated 05.07.2022, excluding period of limitation from March-2020 to February-2022. The said exclusion which would clearly enure to the benefit of the petitioner has not been considered or appreciated by respondent No.2, who erroneously rejected the claim of the petitioner as barred by limitation, which is contrary to law, provisions of the Act and the material on record, warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. 11. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER a. The petition is allowed. b. The impugned order at Ann....