9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 578X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aring Rule 90(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and corresponding Rule 90(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 as well as Paragraph 12 of the Circular F. No. 125/44/2019-GST dated 18.11.2019 issued by the respondent no.2, as being ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India and/or ultra vires Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Section 54 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; (B) In the alternate, issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring that the fresh applications for refund made pursuant to deficiency memorandums issued under Rule 90(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and corresponding Rule 90(3) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, vide impugned order dated 10.01.2022 in Misc. Application No. 21 of 2022, Suo-Moto Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020. He, therefore, submits that refund application has been arbitrarily rejected by the respondent no.4. Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the exclusion period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 as provided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the purposes of limitation. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 10.01.2022 directed as under:- " Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned counsel an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s) of limitation for instituting proceeding, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings" The aforequoted order has been passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court due to the prevailing situation on account of the Covid pandemic. On the fact of the present case, we find that the refund application of the petitioner could not have been rejected by the respondent no.4 merely on the ground of delay, ignoring the aforequoted order of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under the circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. Matter is remitted back to the respondent no.4 to decide the refund application of the petitioner in accordance with law, by reasoned and speaking orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
