Case Law Details
Pedersen Consultants India Pvt. Ltd. Vs union of India & ors. (Delhi High Court)
In recent case of PEDERSEN CONSULTANTS INDIA PVT LTD vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS (W.P.(C) 1039/2024), Delhi high court held that, ITC cannot be denied, just because supplier has filed late returns and recipient claimed the ITC before supplier’s returns. High court allowed recipient to file the refund application.
Fact of the case: – Petitioner (Recipient) had been asked by the department for reversal of ITC as the supplier had not filed returns within time. And therefore benefit of ITC that recipient had claimed is denied. So petitioner has reversed the ITC and deposited the same to government.
Later on it transpired that supplier has also filed the return and paid tax on the said invoice. And since same is amount to double tax payment, recipient filed writ for refund of tax paid.
Court finding and conclusion.
Petitioner shall within one week file an appropriate application with the concerned Authority claiming refund. 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 the purposes of computation of period of limitation for filing a refund application under Section 54 or 55 of the Act. And also the period between the filing of the subject petition and date of disposal of writ also be excluded. the claim of the Petitioner that Petitioner is covered by Notification No. 13/22 shall be considered by the Proper Officer in accordance with law while entertaining the application for refund filed by the Petitioner.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. Mahesh K. Chaudhary, Advocate enters appearance for Respondent No. 3. The office report indicates that Respondent No. 3 is not residing at the given address. Accordingly, Respondent No. 3 is directed to file his latest residential address on record.
2. Petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to grant 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.
3. Learned counsel for Petitioner submits 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 has filed the returns and claimed Input Tax Credit for the same invoices. Consequently, double payment has been made to the department. She submits that Petitioner now seeks refund of the amount that Petitioner was made to deposit on the said invoices.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent submits 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.
5. Learned counsel for Petitioner submits that 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 refund. She relies 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 the purposes of computation of period of limitation for filing a refund application under Section 54 or 55 of the Act. She further submits that the period between the filing of the subject petition i.e. 19.01.2024 till today be also excluded.
6. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to file an appropriate application as mandated by Section 54 of the Act claiming refund. The period between 19.01.2024 till today shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation. Further, the claim of the Petitioner that Petitioner is covered by Notification No. 13/22 shall be considered by the Proper Officer in accordance with law while entertaining the application for refund filed by the Petitioner.
7. Petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor commented upon the merits of the contentions of either party. It would be open to the Proper Officer to adjudicate the claim of the Petitioner for refund in accordance with law.
8. All rights and contentions of parties are reserved.
Author Bio
