M/S Cherish INDIA Exports vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax

Held

The High Court declined to entertain the writ petition, primarily on the ground of availability of a statutory alternative remedy. The Court noted that the core issue involved the determination of the 'relevant date' as per Section 54(14), Explanation 2(a)(i) of the CGST Act, which requires consideration of documents submitted by the petitioner to ascertain the date the ship carrying the goods left India. The Court found this to be a disputed question of fact necessitating evidence, which is best handled by the appellate authority. Therefore, the Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the timeliness of the refund application. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the statutory appellate forum or the competent authority, as advised, in view of the earlier deficiency memo.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Cherish India Exports, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of their GST refund claim for the tax period January-2022 to March-2022. The rejection was communicated via Form GST RFD-03 dated 03.04.2024, by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax. The rejection was based on the ground that the refund application, filed on 21.03.2024, was beyond the prescribed two-year period from the 'relevant date'. The petitioner contended that the application was filed within the statutory time limit, supported by export documents and bill of lading. The authority had issued a deficiency memo earlier, advising the petitioner to file a fresh application after rectifying deficiencies.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's refund application, filed on 21.03.2024, was within the period of two years from the 'relevant date' as prescribed under Section 54(1) read with Explanation (2)(a)(i) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for goods exported by sea or air? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that their refund application was filed within the two-year period from the relevant date. They contended that the necessary export documents, including the bill of lading (No. ETZTPL.KSP220145 dated 01.03.2022) and EGM (No. 241633 dated 09.03.2022), were submitted and should have been considered. They asserted that if these documents were properly considered, the application would be deemed within the time limit, and the rejection was arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent authority rejected the claim on the grounds that the application was time-barred, implying that the 'relevant date' as interpreted by them fell outside the two-year window from the application date.