Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Md. Ershad Alam, challenged two orders dated 24th December, 2020 and 18th November, 2021 passed by the respondent GST authority — the Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax, Ballygunge Charge — rejecting his claim for refund solely on the ground of limitation. The refund application had been made after the expiry of the two-year period ordinarily prescribed under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, but within the period extended by the Supreme Court's Covid-19 suo motu limitation orders, which had since been followed by other High Courts. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Calcutta High Court.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a GST refund claim filed after the ordinarily prescribed two-year period, but within the period extended by the Supreme Court's Covid-19 limitation orders, could lawfully be rejected as time-barred.
  2. Whether the refund authority's rejection required reconsideration in light of subsequent High Court decisions applying the extended limitation period to GST refund claims.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The refund claim, though made after expiry of the statutory two-year period, fell within the period extended by the Supreme Court's Covid-19 limitation order and was accordingly not time-barred.
  • Relied on an unreported decision of the Bombay High Court dated 10th January, 2022 in Saiher Supply Chain Consulting Pvt. Ltd. vs The Union of India & Anr. (Writ Petition (L) No.1275 of 2021).
  • Relied on an unreported decision of the Madras High Court dated 28th September, 2021 in M/s. GNC Infra LLP vs Assistant Commissioner (Circle), Ekkatuthangal, Commercial Tax Department (W.P. No.18165 of 2021).
  • Sought that the impugned rejection orders be set aside and the refund claim be reconsidered on merits.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Learned advocate for the State, upon being asked to examine the decisions relied upon by the petitioner, fairly submitted that the facts of the present case were covered in the petitioner's favour by those decisions.
  • Agreed that the matter should be remanded to the concerned officer to consider the refund claim afresh on merits.

Court Order / Findings

  • Considering the submissions of the parties, including the State's fair concession, the Court disposed of the writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders dated 24th December, 2020 and 18th November, 2021.
  • The Court directed the concerned respondent to consider the petitioner's refund application afresh on merits, and not on the point of limitation, in accordance with law.
  • Directed that a reasoned and speaking order be passed within eight weeks from the date of communication of the Court's order.

Important Clarification

  • Refund applications filed within the period extended by the Supreme Court's suo motu Covid-19 limitation orders cannot be rejected merely as time-barred by reference to the ordinary two-year period prescribed for GST refunds.
  • Where the Department's counsel fairly concedes, on instructions, that a case is covered by persuasive precedent from other High Courts, courts will readily set aside a limitation-based rejection and remand the matter for a decision on merits within a fixed timeframe.

Sections Involved

  • Section 54, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — prescribes the two-year limitation period for filing a refund claim, held in this case to stand extended by the Supreme Court's Covid-19 limitation orders.

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of with directions, in favour of the Assessee on the limitation point — the refund rejection founded on limitation was set aside, but the Court expressed no view on the ultimate entitlement to or quantum of refund, leaving that to be decided afresh by the officer on merits.

Case Details

  • Court: Calcutta High Court (Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction, Appellate Side)
  • Case No.: W.P.A. 2301 of 2022
  • CNR: Not available on record
  • Coram: Hon'ble Md. Nizamuddin, J.
  • Decision Date: 22.02.2022
  • Disposal Nature: Disposed of – impugned refund-rejection orders set aside, remanded for fresh decision on merits within eight weeks

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.