Sali P. Mathai Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)
Kerala High Court held that rejection of the application for refund on the ground that the second application filed by the petitioner was beyond the time specified in sub-section (1) of Section 54 of the CGST/SGST Acts cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, writ petition allowed.
Facts- The petitioner filed an application for refund on 05-04-2021 seeking refund of an amount of Rs.17,46,210/-. In response to that application, the petitioner was served with communication dated 19-04-2021, informing the petitioner regarding certain deficiencies in the application for refund. The petitioner thereafter filed a fresh application for refund on 30-09-2021. The fresh application was admittedly beyond the time specified in Section 54 of the CGST/SGST Acts and was therefore rejected the same.
Conclusion- Held that Rule 90 of the CGST Rules deals with acknowledgement of an application for refund. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 90 of the CGST Rules no doubt requires the filing of a fresh refund application after rectification of deficiencies pointed out in respect of the first application. However, the said sub-rule does not contemplate that the date of the fresh application has to be considered for the purposes of determining the period of limitation for filing an application for refund under sub-section (1) of Section 54 of the CGST/SGST Acts. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the rejection of the application for refund filed by the petitioner by communication on the ground that the second application filed by the petitioner was beyond the time specified in subsection (1) of Section 54 of the CGST/SGST Acts cannot be sustained in law.
