Case Law Details
Pooja Engineering Co. Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Bombay High Court)
SEO Title: GST Refund to Be Processed on Merits: Bombay High Court
SEO Meta Description: Bombay High Court directs GST refund application to be processed on merits, excluding the COVID-19 period from the limitation period. Read the case summary.
Summary: The Bombay High Court in Pooja Engineering Co. Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. addressed the rejection of a GST refund application by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax. The refund application, covering 25 export transactions, was denied on the grounds of exceeding the two-year limitation period under Section 54(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. However, the petitioner pointed out that a subsequent notification issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) on July 5, 2022, clarified that the period from March 1, 2020, to February 28, 2022, should be excluded from the computation of the limitation period due to the impact of COVID-19. Applying this notification, the petitioner argued that the refund application was within the permissible time frame.
The state government’s representative acknowledged this notification and agreed that the rejection order could be set aside. Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned order dated May 27, 2021, and restored the refund application for reconsideration by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax. The court directed that the refund application be processed based on its merits, without rejecting it on limitation grounds. The case was disposed of without any cost implications, ensuring that the refund claim would be evaluated fairly under the applicable legal framework.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
1. Respondents waive service. With the consent of parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.
2. The above Writ Petition challenges the impugned Order dated 27th May, 2021 rejecting the Refund Application filed by the Petitioner. This was a consolidated Application for 25 export transactions.
3. The Refund Application was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax on the ground that the same was not filed within a period of 2 years under Section 54(1) of the CGST (Central Goods and Service Tax) Act, 2017.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner brought to our attention that after the impugned Order, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs has in fact issued a notification dated 5th July 2022, which directs that for computing the period of limitation for filing a refund Application under Section 54 or Section 55 of the CGST Act, the period from 1st March 2020 to 28th February 2022 is to be excluded. He further submitted that in the facts of the present case, if one were to take into the consideration the notification dated 5/7/2022 issued by CBITC, the period for seeking refund sought for every transaction was within the two year period as stipulated in Section 54(1) of the CGST Act.
5. The learned AGP appearing for the Respondent-state fairly stated that considering the above notification, the impugned Order can be set aside and the matter can be remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax to re-process the Refund Application filed by the Petitioner.
6. Considering the fair stand taken by the State, we hereby quash and set aside the impugned order dated 27th May 2021 and restore the Refund Application filed by the Petitioner on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax. We direct that the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax shall process the Refund Application on merits and in accordance with law, without raising issue of limitation.
7. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms and the Writ Petition is also disposed of in terms thereof. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
8. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.
Author Bio
