Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2022 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 660 - HC - GSTPeriod of limitation for refund claim - Constitutional Validity of Rule 90(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - Prayer for declaration that the Rule 90(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 is ultra vires the Constitution of India and shall be struck down - seeking to withdraw the impugned circular dated 18th November, 2019 to the extent it requires a refund application under Rule 90(3) of the the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 to be filed within the time limit prescribed therein - HELD THAT - This Court after considering the identical facts in case of SAIHER SUPPLY CHAIN CONSULTING PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE, NEW DELHI, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE DIVISION-X, MUMBAI 2022 (1) TMI 494 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT has held that while computing the period of limitation time from 15th March, 2020 and 2nd October, 2021 shall stand excluded in view of the order passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court on 23rd September, 2021. The time to file the third application by the petitioner in this case fell within the said period considered by the Supreme Court in the said order dated 23rd September, 2021. The period of limitation thus falling between 15th March, 2020 to 2nd October, 2021 is required to be excluded. If the said period between 15th March, 2020 and 2nd October, 2021 is excluded, the third refund application filed by the petitioner was within the period of limitation prescribed under the said circular dated 19th November, 2029 read with 54(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. There is thus no substance in the submission made by the Revenue - the view taken by the Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Saiher Supply Chain Consulting Pvt. Ltd. apply to the facts of this case and are binding on this Court. Learned counsel for the respondents could not distinguish those orders of the Supreme Court and the judgment of this Court. The order dated 30th April, 2021 is quashed and set aside. The third refund application filed by the petitioner on 14th October, 2020 which was filed within the period of limitation is restored to file before the respondent no.3 - petition allowed.
Issues:
Challenge to Rule 90(3) of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - Ultra vires the Constitution of India, Time limit for filing refund application under Rule 90(3), Rejection of refund application by respondent no.3 as time-barred, Application of limitation period, Interpretation of Supreme Court orders on limitation extension. Analysis: The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the validity of Rule 90(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 as ultra vires the Constitution of India and sought relief from the impugned circular dated 18th November, 2019. The petitioner also requested a mandamus directing respondent no.1 to withdraw the circular's requirement for a refund application under Rule 90(3) to be filed within the prescribed time limit. Additionally, the petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 30th April, 2021. The respondent no.3 rejected the petitioner's refund application citing it as time-barred, even though the original application was filed within the time limit, and subsequent applications were made to rectify deficiencies. The Appellate Authority upheld the rejection, leading to the filing of the present petition. The petitioner argued that the rejection based on limitation was incorrect, referring to Supreme Court orders granting extension of limitation due to COVID-19 related delays. The petitioner relied on a judgment involving similar facts to support their case. The respondent contended that the third refund application was filed after the two-year period stipulated in the circular dated 18th November, 2019, and thus, was time-barred. The Court considered the Supreme Court orders and a similar case precedent, concluding that the period between 15th March, 2020, and 2nd October, 2021, during which limitation was extended, should be excluded. Consequently, the third refund application filed by the petitioner fell within the extended limitation period, rendering the rejection invalid. Relying on the Supreme Court and its own previous judgment, the Court held that the petitioner's application was within the prescribed time limit when the extended period was considered. The Court set aside the order dated 30th April, 2021, and directed respondent no.3 to reconsider the third refund application on its merits without influence from previous observations. The Court clarified that the validity of Rule 90(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, and the circular dated 18th November, 2019, was not addressed in this order and could be examined separately in an appropriate proceeding. The writ petition was allowed, and no costs were awarded.
|