The Karnataka High Court directed the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax for fresh consideration in the matter of an extended limitation period on the Input Tax Credit (ITC) refund claim.
The petitioner, M/s Hutti Gold Mines Company Ltd, preferred the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the prayer to quash the impugned order passed by the respondent, Joint Commissioner of Central GST wherein the prayer made by the petitioner for a refund of input tax credit which has been rejected.
The petitioner’s prayer for a refund of input credit tax for the month of November 2018 was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax on the ground of limitation. The said order was assailed by the petitioner before the Joint Commissioner of Central GST.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dispute involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the series of orders passed by the Supreme Court as well as by this Court. The counsel placed reliance on the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Court in W.P. No.23995/2022 disposed of on 13.01.2023 in the case of M/s.Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd., vs. Union of India and others.
In M/s.Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd., vs. Union of India and others, the Karnataka High Court observed that “It is trite that alternative remedy itself is no reason to reject a writ petition when it can be shown that the impugned orders are ex facie contrary to the settled propositions. If it is undisputed that the limitation for the petitioner’s subject refund applications expired during the period between 01.03.2020 and 28.02.2022, the petitioner would be entitled to an extended limitation of 90 days from 01.03.2022 and the applications are within this time, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order sustained.”
The counsel for the respondents did not dispute the said submission made by the petitioner’s counsel. However, the counsel contended that the order of rejection was passed by the Assistant Commissioner before the notification dated 15.07.2022 and therefore no fault can be found in the same.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty observed that “Be that as it may be, the fact remains that this Court has already considered the question involved in this writ petition in W.P. No.23995/2022 and therefore, even this writ petition is required to be disposed of in terms of the orders passed in the said petition by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.”
“The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Central GST is set aside and the petitioner’s application for refund is restored and the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax is directed to consider the same afresh by law” the Bench concluded.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
