TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 81
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated May 11, 2024 passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax, 2017/Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017 (hereafter "the said Act of 2017"). 2. The petitioner no.1 (hereafter "the petitioner") is a supplier of certain goods including edible oil. 3. The petitioner had applied for refund of accumulated unutilised Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the month of May 2021 arising from inverted duty structure. To wit, the rate of tax on inputs used by the petitioner was higher than the rate of tax on the outward supplies of the manufactured foods of the petitioner. Such application for refund of unutilised ITC as aforesaid was filed before the relevant GST authority on June 16, 2023. 4. The sai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m refund arose. It is submitted that once such cause of action has accrued, and the legislature has granted a time within which claim of benefit of refund can be made, such time could not have been subsequently curtailed by an executive circular with retrospective effect. 9. In support of his contention that the retrospectivity attributed to the said circulars has been found to be inconsistent with the legislative mandate of Section 54(1) of the said Act of 2017 by several High Courts across the country, Mr. Majumdar has relied on the following judgments: - 1. Patanjali Foods Ltd. v. Union of India, reported at (2025) 28 Centax 75 (Guj), 2. Vaibhav Edibles Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. reported at (2025) 37 Centax 199 (All....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, reported at 2004 (168) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) once a High Court has interpreted a Central Circular in a certain way, the same should be followed by the concerned authorities throughout the territory of India. 13. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the respondent CGST authorities, Mr. Sanyal, learned advocate appearing for the respondent SGST authority and Mr. Kundalia, learned senior advocate appearing for the Union of India do not have much resistance to offer to the submissions made by Mr. Majumdar. 14. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the material on record. 15. Sections 54(1) and 54(3) of the said Act of 2017 which are relevant for the present cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nput tax credit under clause (ii) of the first proviso to sub-section (3), the due date for furnishing of return under Section 39 for the period in which such claim for refund arises;" 17. In terms of the aforesaid provisions, due date for the petitioner to file its returns under Section 39 of the said Act of 2017 would be June 20, 2021. Therefore June 20, 2021 would be the relevant date in terms of the aforesaid Explanation to Section 54(1) of the said Act of 2017 and that being so the petitioner's application for refund made on June 16, 2023 was well within the two years' timeframe mentioned in Section 54(1) of the said Act of 2017. 18. Thus the petitioner had applied within the period prescribed under Section 54(1) of the said Act ....