TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ATE, THE CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, UNION OF INDIA [ 2023 (11) TMI 774 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] , wherein it has been held that the fixation of limitation for making refund application is only directory in nature and the same is not mandatory. Accordingly, the limitation of 2 years, which was provided under Section 54(1) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is directory in nature. In such case, if any reasons were provided for delay in filing the refund application, the same shall be considered and the said delay shall be condoned by the respondent. Thus, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 24.09.2023 is liable to be set aside - petition disposed off. - Hon'ble Mr. Justi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt and the same was confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide the Mohit Minerals case (referred supra). 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was charged IGST on the Ocean Freight Charges for the period of December, 2017 for Rs. 10,53,594/- and January, 2018 for Rs. 13,25,232/-. 5. Further, it was submitted that prior to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Mohit Minerals case (referred supra), an application for refund was filed by the petitioner. However, the said application was rejected by the Department on 18.06.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner had approached the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority had also rejected the said application vide order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ters and the said law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court will apply to the present case as well. 10. When the petitioner filed their refund application before the respondents, the said law was not laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Hence, the refund application was rejected by the respondent. It also appears that the refund application was also rejected on the aspect of limitation. 11. Recently, this Court had passed an order in W.P.No.23604 of 2022 dated 06.11.2023 [ M/s. Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd., vs. The Joint Commissioner of GST (Appeals-1) and others ], wherein it has been held that the fixation of limitation for making refund application is only directory in nature and the same is not mandatory. Accordingly, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
