Case Law Details
Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Joint Commissioner of GST (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court held that refund cannot be denied as refund application under section 54(1) of CGST Act was made within a period of limitation, however, supportive documents were submitted at the time of personal hearing. Notably, the time limit fixed u/s. 54 (1) is directory in nature and it is not mandatory.
Facts- The petitioner is engaged in manufacture/import of Computers (Desktops/Laptops etc.) and supplying the said goods and related services to units in Special Economic Zones (in short, SEZ Unit).
The petitioner filed applications u/s. 16 of IGST Act read with Section 54 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) read with Rule 89 of CGST Rules, 2017, claiming refund of IGST paid by them for the months of December, 2019, January 2020 and February 2020. However, the petitioner’s applications have been rejected in part by the second respondent by means of the Order-in-Original and when the petitioner went on appeal before the first respondent/Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority also confirmed the order passed by the second respondent by way of Order-in Appeal. Challenging the Order-in-Appeal, the present Writ Petitions are filed.
Conclusion- Held that when the petitioner has filed application, which is within a period of limitation, viz. 2 years as stipulated under Section 54(1) of the CGST Act, the delay in filing the supporting document at the time of filing of reply/personal herein would only extend the time limit to pass an order under Section 54 (7) of the CGST Act and non-submission of documents at the time of filing application for refund cannot be deemed to have filed with a delay, since there had been a delay in obtaining the endorsement owing to Covid-19, the petitioner could not produce the same at the time of filing application, however, produced the same at the time of personal hearing. Further, when the respondent-Department has accepted the supportive documents produced by the petitioner at the time of filing of personal hearing, in respect of the claim made for the month of December, 2019 and processed the application, the respondent-Department cannot take a different stand in respect of the claim made for subsequent period, viz., January 2020, by stating that the documents were filed belatedly, and hence, refund claim cannot be allowed.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
