Shri. Yogesh Rajendra Mehra vs. Principal Commissioner CGST And Central Exise Raigad (Appeal) And Ors

Facts

The Petitioner, Shri Yogesh Rajendra Mehra, had a GST registration (27AQEPM6029PIZA) which was cancelled on January 1, 2019. He subsequently obtained a new registration (27AQEPM6029P2Z9) on March 26, 2022. For the first quarter of 2022, his Chartered Accountant inadvertently filed returns and deposited tax of Rs. 1,22,220/- under both the old, cancelled registration and the new, active registration. The Petitioner sought a refund of the amount deposited under the cancelled registration. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund application, citing Circular No. 125/44/2019, which requires all due returns to be filed before claiming a refund. The Petitioner's appeal against this order was rejected by the appellate authority on grounds of limitation, stating it was filed on December 28, 2022, beyond the prescribed period under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act, despite the online filing date of August 18, 2022.

Held

The Court held that the approach of both the original and appellate authorities was incorrect in facts and law. It found that the Petitioner's first registration was cancelled, and a new valid registration was obtained. The deposit of tax under the cancelled registration was due to a bona fide mistake. The Court reasoned that an assessee cannot be expected to file returns or deposit tax under an invalid, cancelled registration. Therefore, the tax deposited under the cancelled registration could not be retained by the respondents as it was not a deposit made under the authority of law. Regarding the appeal's limitation, the Court found that the Petitioner had filed the appeal online within the prescribed period of four months. It held that minor deficiencies in filing, such as failure to furnish physical documents or upload all required documents, should not lead to an appeal being declared barred by limitation, especially when filed online within the stipulated time. Such deficiencies could be rectified later. The Court emphasized that procedural compliance should not defeat a substantive remedy and that a hyper-technical view by the appellate authority was contrary to the record and illegal. Consequently, the impugned orders were quashed, and the Petitioner was held entitled to a refund of Rs. 1,22,220/- along with permissible interest.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a refund of Rs. 1,22,220/- deposited under a cancelled GST registration number, considering the inadvertent filing of returns and deposit of tax due to a bona fide error by his Chartered Accountant. The Petitioner argued that the returns filed under the old registration were void ab initio and the deposited amount had no legal consequence, as the new registration was active and a valid return was filed under it. The Petitioner also contended that the authorities below failed to consider these facts. 2. Whether the Petitioner's appeal before the appellate authority was barred by limitation under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act. The Petitioner argued that the appeal was filed online within the prescribed limitation period of four months from the original order dated June 8, 2022, and that the appellate authority erred in rejecting it on technical grounds of non-compliance with physical document submission or minor deficiencies, without considering the online filing date. The Revenue contended that the appeal was indeed time-barred.