Bombay HC directs GST Dept to accept GST Refund Application as period of limitation fell between the period excluded by the Supreme Court
The Bombay High Court in the case of Saiher Supply Chain Consulting Pvt. Ltd. v/s The Union Of India & Through the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice and Ors. directed the GST Department to accept the GST Refund Application as the period of limitation fell between the period excluded by the Supreme Court.
The Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks declaration that, Rule 90 (3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 is ultra vires the Constitution of India and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and consequently strike down the same. The Petitioner also seeks writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the rejection Order and seeks an order and direction to restore the third refund application of the Petitioner filed by the Respondent and to decide the same on merits.
Advocate Mr.Patkar, appearing for the Petitioner assailed the impugned Order passed by the Respondent, rejecting the third refund application filed by the Petitioner on the ground of time barred refund application.
Advocate Mr.Bangur, appearing for the Respondent contended that, since those two applications were full of deficiencies, were rightly rejected by the Respondent. The third refund application was required to be filed within the period of two years under Circular dated 18th November 2019 under Section 54(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 but the third refund application was admittedly filed after expiry of two years.
The division bench of Justice S. M. Modak and Justice R. D. Dhanuka held that the third refund application filed by the Petitioner thus was within the period of limitation prescribed under the said Circular read with Section 54(1) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017.
“The impugned order passed by the Respondent is contrary to the order passed by the Supreme Court and thus deserves to be quashed and set-aside”, the court said.
The court while passing the orders quashed and set aside the order passed by the respondent and directed it to consider the said third refund application on its own merits and in accordance with law expeditiously.
