The Delhi High Court was directed to apply for a refund mandated under section 54 of the Central Goods and Service Tax ( CGST ) Act, 2017 for a refund of GST paid. The court excluded the period between 19.01.2024 till the date of judgment for limitation.
Pedersen Consultants India Pvt Ltd, the Petitioner sought direction to the respondents to grant the benefit of Input Tax Credit that was paid by the Petitioner on the same invoices for the period 2019-2020, on which, Respondent No. 3 has also paid the tax.
Counsel for Petitioner submitted that Petitioner had been coerced into depositing the tax on the said invoices as Respondent No. 3 had not filed returns within time. Subsequently, it transpired that Respondent No. 3 had filed the returns and claimed an Input Tax Credit for the same invoices. Consequently, a double payment has been made to the department. She submits that Petitioner now seeks a refund of the amount that Petitioner was made to deposit on the said invoices.
Counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that the claim of the Petitioner was not considered as Petitioner had failed to file an appropriate refund application as required under Section 54 of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017.
Since the objection of non-filing of an appropriate application has been raised, Petitioner shall within one week file an appropriate application with the concerned Authority claiming a refund. She relied upon Notification No. 13/2022 dated 05.07.2022 to contend that the period between 01.03.2020 to 28.02.2023 is to be excluded for computation of the period of limitation for filing a refund application under Section 54 or 55 of the Act. She further submitted that the period between the filing of the subject petition i.e. 19.01.2024 till today is also excluded.
A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja disposed of the petition permitting the petitioner to file an appropriate application as mandated by Section 54 of the Act claiming a refund. The period between 19.01.2024 till today shall be excluded for limitation.
Further held that “ the claim of the Petitioner that Petitioner is covered by Notification No. 13/22 shall be considered by the Proper Officer by law while entertaining the application for refund filed by the Petitioner.”
Ms. Sangita Gulati appeared for the Petitioner. Mr. Anish Roy, Senior Standing Counsel, CBIC with Mr.Dileep Singh Rajpurohit and Mr. Mahesh K. Chaudhary appeared for the Respondents.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
