Limitation Period of 2 Years Expires u/s 54 CGST Act: Bombay HC Restores Refund Claim [Read Order]

The Bombay High Court (HC), presided over by Justices Abhay Ahuja and Nitin Jamdar, reinstated the petitioner's refund claim, which had been denied on the grounds that the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act of 2017's statute of limitations had expired.

The petitioner, Tejus Vertrage Infra LLP aggrieved by the order of Additional Commissioner (Appeals-II), Central Tax  preferred the appeal before the Bombay HC. The authorities have rejected the refund claim of the Petitioner primarily on the ground that the refund claim is beyond the period of two years as prescribed under section 54 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

The section 54 of the CGST act states about the refund of the tax. According to the provision, the person has to make an application within 2 years for the refund claim. There are some documents to be submitted with the application.

The applicant may file a declaration, based on the documentary or other evidences that are in his possession, attesting that the incidence of such tax and interest had not been passed on to any other person, provided that the amount sought as a refund is less than two lakh rupees, in which case it will not be necessary for the applicant to provide any documentary and other evidences.

The bench noted the observations made by the Assistant Commissioner in his order that the Supreme Court Orders dated 08.03.2021 or 27.04.2021 is not applicable in the instant case as the compliances i.e. filing of refund need to be done by the taxpayers which is governed only by the statutory mechanism and time limit provided extensions granted under the statute itself.

The bench further acknowledged the Supreme Court decisions in the cases of Saiher Supply Chain Consulting Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Union of India and Anotherand Priceline.Com Technology India LLP vs. The Union of India and Others, where it was determined that the refund claim is also subject to the extension of the statute of limitations imposed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020.

The division bench overturned the disputed order and returned the petitioner's reimbursement claim to the Assistant Commissioner's file after taking into account the supreme court rulings and the arguments of the counsels.

Additionally, in accordance with these findings, the Assistant Commissioner will reexamine the Petitioner's case on the merits as well as the grounds of limitation.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates