M/S. Vyplavi Granites vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Central Tax

Held

The Court allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside the order dated 30.04.2021 to the extent it rejected the petitioner's refund claim for the period April 2018 to January 2019. The matter was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration. The Court reasoned that the Supreme Court's order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 dated 08.03.2021, which excluded the period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 for computing limitation, would render the petitioner's claim within the permissible period. The impugned order, while referencing the Supreme Court's order, failed to consider its directions. The Court noted that a co-ordinate bench had followed a similar approach in another case. The finding on Issue 1 is that the rejection was not in line with the Supreme Court's directions on limitation. The ratio is that the period of limitation for refund applications should be computed by excluding the period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 as per the Supreme Court's order.

Facts

The petitioner, a registered dealer engaged in processing raw granite blocks and exporting polished granite slabs/tiles, challenged an order dated 30.04.2021 by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax. This order rejected the petitioner's refund claim of Rs.46,72,862/- for the tax period April 2018 to January 2019, citing the "Relevant date" under Section 54 of the CGST Act. The petitioner had filed the refund application on 13.03.2021. The respondent acknowledged the claim and issued a show cause notice. The petitioner replied, relying on a Supreme Court order. The impugned order granted a refund of Rs.6,07,516/- for February-March 2019 but rejected the claim for April 2018-January 2019.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's refund claim for the period April 2018 to January 2019 is illegal, arbitrary, and opposed to Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017, and Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The impugned order is illegal and arbitrary. The respondent failed to consider the Supreme Court's order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 dated 08.03.2021. A co-ordinate bench of this court had set aside a similar order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Revenue's arguments: The petitioner did not make the refund claim within the time stipulated by the statute, and therefore, is not entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.