Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2022 (2) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2022 (2) TMI 660 - HC - GST


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.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates