Gillette Diversified Operations Private Limited Vs Joint Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals-II) (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court held refund claim filed within two years from ‘relevant date’ as defined in Explanation 2(a) to Section 54(14) of CGST Act. Therefore order rejecting refund claim not sustainable.
Facts- In W.P.No.6531 of 2022, the petitioner seeks for a Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to extend the benefit of proviso introduced under Rule 90(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 to exclude the number of days from the date of filing of refund claim to the date of issue of Deficiency Memo for the purpose of computation of limitation and also direct the first respondent to reconsider the refund claim on this merits.
In W.P.No.6541 of 2022, the petitioner has challenged the Circular No.125/44/2019 dated 18.11.2019 issued by the third respondent and for a further direction to the first respondent to reconsider the refund claim on its merits.
Conclusion- As per Circular No.79/53/2018-GST dated 31.12.2018, an exporter was required to file refund claim / application FORM GST RFD-01A on the common portal and take a print out of the same and submit it physically to the jurisdictional tax office along with all supporting documents. Thus, refund claims were refiled manually along with supporting documents on 03.2019. These refund claims were however returned for defects. Thus, they were thereafter re-presented on 18.10.2019 and were acknowledged on 01.11.2019.
