In WP NO. 13709 OF 2022-BOM HC- Bombay HC sets aside order of Additional Commissioner (Appeals-II), Central Tax that had rejected the refund claim of petitioner primarily on the ground that the refund claim was beyond the period of 2 years as prescribed under section 54 of CGST Act
Justices Nitin Jamdar & Abhay Ahuja [23-02-2023]

Read Order: Tejus Vertrage Infra LLP v. Union of India & Ors

LE Correspondent

Mumbai, April 14, 2023: The Bombay High Court has set aside an order of the Additional Commissioner (Appeals-II), Central Tax, Pune, that had rejected the refund claim of the petitioner primarily on the ground that the refund claim was beyond the period of two years as prescribed under section 54 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

A division-bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Abhay Ahuja made the decision on the basis of precedents set by two division benches of the Bombay High Court in two cases — Saiher Supply Chain Consulting Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Union of India and Another and Priceline. com Technology India LLP Vs. The Union of India and Others.

The High Court, in its order, noted that the Assistant Commissioner has proceeded on the basis that for the refund claims the decision of the Supreme Court in a Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 is not applicable.

“This interpretation of the Officers was considered by two Division Benches of this Court, first in the case of Saiher Supply Chain Consulting Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Union of India and Another (2022-TIOL-48-HC-MUM-GST) and second in the case of Priceline. com Technology India LLP Vs. The Union of India and Others (2023- TIOL-35-HC-MUM-GST) and it is held that the period of limitation which was extended under the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 also apply to the claim for refund,” the Bench said.

The petitioner approached the High Court against the order dated 25 February 2022 passed in appeal by Respondent No.5- Additional Commissioner (Appeals-II), Central Tax, Pune confirming the Order-in-Original dated 23 July 2022. By the impugned order, Respondent No.5 had rejected the refund claim of the petitioner primarily on the ground that the refund claim is beyond the period of two years as prescribed under section 54 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

“We set aside the impugned order and restore the refund claim of the Petitioner to file of the Assistant Commissioner, who will examine the case of the Petitioner on the basis of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 and the subsequent orders passed in Suo Motu Petition,” the bench said.

The High Court further directed that the Assistant Commissioner will consider the case of the Petitioner afresh, both on the ground of limitation and on merit in the light of what is observed above. The requisite decision be taken within the period of six weeks from today, it said, disposing of the petition.