CESTAT Set Aside Demand Under Extended Limitation: Jharkhand HC Directs GST Authority to Determine Refund Within 3 Months [Read Order]
The Court directed the Superintendent of CGST to act on the CESTAT order which had set aside tax demands under the extended limitation period, ruling that the authority must determine the final refund or demand amount within three months after providing the petitioner with an opportunity to be heard
![CESTAT Set Aside Demand Under Extended Limitation: Jharkhand HC Directs GST Authority to Determine Refund Within 3 Months [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2026/06/15/2140311-cestat-set-extended-limitation-jharkhand-hc-directs-gst-determine-refund-taxscan.webp "CESTAT Set Aside Demand Under Extended Limitation: Jharkhand HC Directs GST Authority to Determine Refund Within 3 Months [Read Order]")
The Jharkhand High Court has disposed of a writ case by directing the Central GST authority to enforce a decision passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata. The Division Bench ordered the Superintendent, CGST (Respondent No. 3) to determine the final tax amount or refund payable as per the findings of the Tribunal within a defined...
The Jharkhand High Court has disposed of a writ case by directing the Central GST authority to enforce a decision passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata. The Division Bench ordered the Superintendent, CGST (Respondent No. 3) to determine the final tax amount or refund payable as per the findings of the Tribunal within a defined period.
M/s. Kalsi Buildcon Private Limited filed the writ petition in which the issue has arisen from a Final Order given by the CESTAT on 24th October, 2024 in Service Tax Appeal No. 75934 of 2022. The Tribunal had heard a Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued on September 20, 2019 from 2014-15 to June 2017. CESTAT held that there was ambiguity regarding the service performed to the Government and all papers were in the public domain. It therefore decided that the "extended period of limitation" was not available and cancelled the demand for that period. However, the Tribunal held that any claim within the “normal period” was obliged to be paid by the appellant with interest.
The petitioner had addressed the High Court with the allegation that the Revenue Department was not complying with the CESTAT judgement. The Department argued that the demands were payable, however the petitioner submitted that a refund together with interest was owed as per the ruling of the Tribunal.
The Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar declined to perform the arithmetic of the computations themselves, saying that this exercise must be done by the executive authority. The Court has asked the Superintendent to decide within three months as to whether a refund is due or in any event, any amount payable by the petitioner.
“This exercise shall be completed within three months from today, if necessary, after hearing the petitioner,” the Bench directed.
The Court also ordered that in the event a refund is determined to be owed, it shall be paid within one month after the ruling. On the other hand, the counsel for the petitioner undertook to pay the demand, if any, found lawfully due for the regular period within a month's time, subject to the liberty of the petitioner to pursue additional legal remedies.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
