Facts of the Case

The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, engaged in processing raw granite blocks and manufacture and export of polished granite slabs/tiles, claimed a refund of Rs.46,72,862/- for the tax period April 2018 to March 2019 in Form RFD-01 dated 13.03.2021 under sub-section (3) of Section 54 of the Act. Respondent No.1, the Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax, acknowledged the application vide Form RFD-02 dated 26.03.2021, and issued a show cause notice in Form GST RFD-08 dated 26.03.2021. The petitioner replied on 02.04.2021, relying on the Supreme Court's order dated 08.03.2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020, which extended limitation on account of the pandemic. By order dated 30.04.2021, respondent No.1 allowed refund of Rs.6,07,516/- for the period February–March 2019 under Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017 read with Section 54, but rejected the claim for the period April 2018 to January 2019 as filed beyond the "relevant date" under Explanation 2 to Section 54.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the refund claim for the period April 2018 to January 2019 was correctly rejected as time-barred without giving effect to the Supreme Court's order excluding the COVID period from limitation computation.
  2. Whether the issue stood covered by a coordinate bench decision of the same High Court that had earlier remanded a similar matter.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The rejection of the claim for April 2018 to January 2019 was illegal, arbitrary, and opposed to Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017, and Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
  • Respondent No.1 failed to take into consideration the Supreme Court's order dated 08.03.2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020, excluding the period 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 from limitation computation.
  • A coordinate bench of the same High Court, in W.P.No.3049 of 2022 dated 08.02.2022, had already set aside a similarly worded order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The petitioner did not make the refund claim within the time stipulated under the statute, and was therefore not entitled to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Court Order/Findings

  • The Court noted it was undisputed that the petitioner applied on 13.03.2021 and filed a detailed reply on 02.04.2021 referring to the Supreme Court's suo motu order.
  • As per the statute, an application for the period April 2018 to March 2019 should have been filed on or before 19.05.2020, but was in fact filed on 13.03.2021.
  • Applying the Supreme Court's order dated 08.03.2021 excluding the period 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 from computation of limitation, the Court held the petitioner's entire claim was liable to be accepted for consideration.
  • The Court noted that a coordinate bench, in W.P.No.3049 of 2022, had already set aside a similar order on this basis and remanded the matter; respondent No.1 had referred to the Supreme Court's order but made no endeavour to apply its directions.
  • The writ petition was allowed; the order dated 30.04.2021 was set aside to the extent it rejected the claim for April 2018 to January 2019, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration and passing of appropriate orders in light of the Supreme Court's directions. No order as to costs.

Important Clarification

  • The Supreme Court's Suo Motu order excluding the period 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 from the computation of limitation applies to GST refund applications under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017.
  • An adjudicating authority that refers to the Supreme Court's limitation-extension order but fails to actually apply its exclusion while rejecting a refund claim as time-barred renders that rejection unsustainable.

Sections Involved

  • Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – governs refund of tax, including the "relevant date" for computing limitation under Explanation 2.
  • Rule 89(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 – prescribes the formula for computation of refund of unutilised input tax credit.
  • Forms GST RFD-01, RFD-02 and RFD-08 – the refund application, acknowledgment, and show cause notice forms used in the proceedings.

Decision – In Favour of

In favour of the assessee. The writ petition was allowed; the rejection of the refund claim for April 2018 to January 2019 was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax for fresh consideration by applying the Supreme Court's limitation-exclusion order.

Related Case Laws

The order itself refers to a coordinate bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P.No.3049 of 2022 dated 08.02.2022, on a similar issue; no post on that decision is currently available on this site for a direct link.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh
  • Case No.: Writ Petition No.12197 of 2021
  • Coram: Hon'ble Sri Justice A.V. Sesha Sai and Hon'ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari
  • Date of Order: 25.04.2022

Link to Download the Order

Download the full judgment (PDF)

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.