Case Law Details
Babasaheb Kedar Shetkari Sahakari Soot Girni Limited Vs State of Maharashtra and others (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner’s GST refund applications for excess input tax relating to the period December 2017 to March 2018. The refund applications had been rejected on two grounds: first, that the application for December 2017 was filed beyond the time prescribed after the 2019 amendment to Section 54(1) of the GST Act, and second, that the applications for January to March 2018 could not be accepted because the refund application for the previous month was unavailable on the portal.
The petitioner contended that Rule 97-A of the GST Rules permitted manual filing and processing of refund applications where electronic filing was not possible. It also argued that the amendment to Section 54(1), which altered the definition of the “relevant date,” operated prospectively and could not apply to refund claims relating to periods prior to 01.02.2019. The State argued that the limitation had to be computed in accordance with the amended provision and that the refund application had not been filed within the due date for furnishing returns.
The High Court held that, in view of the Supreme Court’s order excluding the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for limitation purposes, the refund application filed on 13.05.2020 for December 2017 was within time. The Court further held that the amendment to Section 54(1) was prospective, as it did not expressly provide for retrospective operation. Consequently, refund claims relating to the period before 01.02.2019 were governed by the earlier definition of “relevant date,” namely, the end of the financial year, and not the amended definition based on the due date for furnishing returns.
With respect to the refund claims for January to March 2018, the Court held that Rule 97-A entitled the petitioner to submit the applications manually since the online portal had not accepted them. Accordingly, the Court directed the respondents to accept and entertain the refund applications, including those filed manually where applicable, and process them in accordance with the applicable rules. The writ petition was allowed without any order as to costs.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Heard Mr. Gohokar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pathan, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent / State. None for the respondent No.6 though served as per affidavit of service upon it.
2. The petition questions the refusal on the part of the respondents to refund the excess input tax under the GST Act, claimed to have been paid by the petitioner for the months of December, 2017 to March, 2018. The applications have been rejected on two grounds –
(i) That, there was a delay in filing the application for refund on the portal for the month of December, 2017, which was not being accepted on account of the amendment made to Section 54(1) to the GST Act in 2019 and
(ii) That, the application for subsequent months of January, February, March, 2018, were not accepted as the application for previous month was not available.
3. Mr. Gohokar, learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that in view of Section 97-A of the GST Act, a manual filing and processing of refund is also permissible and for that purpose he relies upon the judgment in the case of Laxmi Organic Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India in Writ Petition No.7861 of 2021 decided on 30/11/2021 by the learned Principal Bench of this Court. He further submits, that since there is limitation of two years for filing the refund application in terms of Section 54(1) of the GST Act of 2017, the subsequent amendment which changes the definition of the ‘relevant date’ would be applicable prospectively and not prior to 01/02/2019, when the amendment is said to have come into effect.
4. Mr Pathan, learned Assistant Government Pleader contends, that the period of two years has to be calculated in terms of the amended provision, which has come into effect from 2019 and therefore, since the application for refund has not been filed within due date of furnishing return as per the amended provision Sections 54(1) of the said Act, the same has rightly been not accepted.
5. Insofar as the question of delay is concerned, the period between 15/03/2020 to 28/02/2022 has been excluded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Miscellaneous Application No. 21/2022 in SMWC No.3/2020 (In Reference Cognizance For Extension of Limitation Vs XXXX ) and considering the deletion of this period, the application which has been filed on 13/5/2020 for the month of December, 2017, would be within time.
6. Insofar as the plea regarding applicability of the amendment to Section 54(1) of the GST Act is concerned, it would be apparent that the amendment would be prospective in nature, unless so specified, which is not the case and therefore, the amended Section 54(1) would be applicable to the application for refund filed post 01/02/2019 to claim for refund in respect of returns filed consequent to that date. It would therefore, be apparent that the application for refund of the input tax to be filed by the petitioner would be covered by the earlier definition of ‘relevant date’ which defined the same as end of financial year and not the amended definition of ‘relevant date’ which defines it as due date for furnishing return.
7. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the application filed by the petitioner for refund of the input tax for the month of December, 2017 ought to have been entertained for the above period by the respondents and appropriate orders could have been passed.
8. Insofar as the applications for refund for the month from January to March, 2018 are concerned, in view of the language of Rule 97-A of the GST Rules, the petitioner would be entitled to file an application manually as the applications sought to be filed through the portal were not accepted as is indicated from the documents at page Nos. 26 to 34.
9. The petition is allowed by directing the respondents to accept and entertain the applications for refund of input tax and process them according to the rules as applicable. No costs.
Author Bio
