M/S Sabre Travel Technologies PVT LTD vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sabre Travel Technologies Pvt. Ltd., filed a refund claim for the period April 2019 to June 2019. Initially, a deficiency memo was issued, which the petitioner cured and refiled the application. Respondent No. 4 issued a show cause notice proposing to disallow a portion of the refund. Subsequently, a second show cause notice was issued proposing to reject the refund claim entirely, citing it as barred by limitation. The petitioner responded, arguing the claim was not time-barred due to the COVID-19 pandemic and referencing the Supreme Court's decision in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation. Respondent No. 4 passed an order in original on 23.09.2021, partly rejecting the refund on limitation grounds. The petitioner's appeal before Respondent No. 3 was also rejected by an order dated 01.10.2022. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

Held

The Court held that the impugned orders rejecting the refund claim on the grounds of limitation deserved to be set aside. The Court relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, which was also followed by this Court in M/s. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others. The Court found that the issue of limitation had been concluded in favour of the petitioner by these pronouncements. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to Respondent No. 4 for reconsideration of the petitioner's claim on its merits, without reference to the limitation period. The petitioner was granted liberty to submit additional pleadings and documents, and Respondent No. 4 was directed to provide a personal hearing and pass appropriate orders within three months.

Key Issues

1. Whether the refund claim filed by the petitioner for the period April 2019 to June 2019 is barred by limitation, considering the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic and the Supreme Court's decision in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (2022 (3) SCC 117)? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the refund claim was not barred by time, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, which provided for the extension of limitation periods due to the pandemic. They argued that this precedent should be applied to their refund claim. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the revenue or state respondents regarding the limitation issue. However, their actions in issuing show cause notices and rejecting the refund on limitation grounds indicate their stance.