Ms. Anita Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner CGST & Ors.

Held

The Court held that the period of limitation for filing refund applications under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was indeed extended. This was based on the petitioner's reliance on the Supreme Court's order in SMW(C) No. 3/2020, 'Cognizance for Extension of Limitation', and more crucially, the subsequent notification dated July 5, 2022, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, CBIC. Clause (iii) of this notification explicitly excluded the period from March 1, 2020, to February 28, 2022, for the computation of the period of limitation for filing refund applications under Section 54 or Section 55 of the Act. The revenue's counsel affirmed this position. Consequently, the Court found that the Order-in-Appeal, which had held the refund claims to be time-barred, was no longer sustainable. The Court ordered the setting aside of the Order-in-Appeal. As the amounts for which refund claims were lodged had already been remitted, no further consequential directions were deemed necessary. The ratio decidendi is that statutory provisions and government notifications extending limitation periods due to extraordinary circumstances must be given effect to, overriding prior time-bar determinations.

Facts

The petitioner, Ms. Anita Agarwal, filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Appeal dated December 27, 2021, passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals-I), Central Goods & Service Tax, Delhi. The revenue's appeal was allowed by the impugned order, holding that the petitioner's refund claims were time-barred under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the period of limitation for filing refund applications was extended by Supreme Court orders. Subsequently, a notification dated July 5, 2022, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, CBIC, formally excluded the period from March 1, 2020, to February 28, 2022, for computing the limitation period for filing refund applications under Section 54 or Section 55 of the Act. The revenue's counsel affirmed this position.

Key Issues

1. Whether the period of limitation for filing refund applications under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was extended due to the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent government notifications? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the period of limitation for filing refund claims stood extended, relying on the Supreme Court's order in SMW(C) No. 3/2020, 'Cognizance for Extension of Limitation'. Further, the petitioner highlighted the subsequent notification dated July 5, 2022, which explicitly excluded the period from March 1, 2020, to February 28, 2022, for computing the limitation period for filing refund applications under Section 54 or Section 55 of the Act. Revenue's contention: The revenue's counsel affirmed the petitioner's position regarding the extension of the limitation period and agreed that the Order-in-Appeal could be set aside in light of the notification.