The Bombay High Court quashed the rejection of GST refund filed beyond limitation amidst Covid situation, thereby granting relief to 44 EMB Studio Private Limited, the petitioner.
The Petitioner is a Private Limited Company engaged in exporting consultation services of embroidery designs. According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner for the supply of services exported under Section 2(6) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act, 2017 for September 2018 to October 2019 was entitled to a refund of Rs.57 lakhs.
The Petitioner applied for a refund and had annexed a statement as required under Rule 89(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 giving the particulars of the tax paid and the refund claimed.The Petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed by the Sales Tax Officer and the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appellate Authority) rejecting the application filed by the Petitioner on the ground of delay.
The Respondent – Sales Tax Officer observed that the relevant date for the majority of the invoices is more than two years which is beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 54 of the Act, and accordingly, proceeded to pass an order partially rejecting the claim for refund. After that, the Petitioner filed an appeal under Section 107 of the Maharashtra Goods and Service Tax (MGST) Act, 2017. The Petitioner had contended before the Appellate Authority that due to Covid-19 pandemic; the refund application could not be filed in time.
The Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that though it is correct that for part of the claim which has been rejected refund was sought after a period of two years, however, the period was extended by the orders passed by the Supreme Court in Re: Cognizance for Extension of LimitationinSuo Motu Writ Petition No. 3 of 2020 extending the period of limitation.
The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Saiher Supply Chain Consulting Pvt Ltd. v. Union of India has held that these orders apply to the proceedings for a refund before the GST Authorities.
The Coram consisting of Justices Sharmila U Deshmukh and Nitin Jamdar observed that “The arguments of the Petitioner, as reflected in the impugned order, are based on the general situation brought about by the Covid-19 pandemic. The implications of the orders passed by the Supreme Court is not considered while calculating the limitation period.”
“The appropriate course of action therefore would be to set aside the impugned order, restore the appeal filed by the Petitioner in respect of the refund which has not been granted and direct the Appellate Authority to examine the aspect of limitation on merits afresh in the light of the decision/order passed by the Supreme Court in the Suo Motu Writ Petition” the Bench noted.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
