Pratyush Agarwal, Proprietor Of Prc Enterprises vs. The Assistant Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Khardah Division, Kolkata North Commissionerate And Ors

Held

The Court held that considering the submissions of the parties, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo motu writ petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, and Notification No. 13/2022-Central Tax dated July 5, 2022, the impugned order of the adjudicating authority denying the refund claim on grounds of delay was set aside. The Court reasoned that these pronouncements and notifications provided a basis for condoning the delay. The matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority to consider the refund claim afresh. The adjudicating authority is directed to pass a speaking order, taking into account the aforementioned notification. If the petitioner's case of limitation is found to be covered by the notification, relief shall be granted, subject to verification of the genuineness of the transaction. The proceedings are to be concluded within eight weeks after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Pratyush Agarwal, Proprietor of PRC Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated June 28, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX, Khardah Division, Kolkata North Commissionerate. The order denied the petitioner's claim for a refund under the CGST Act due to the delay in filing the application beyond the statutory period. The petitioner contended that the delay occurred during the Covid-19 period and was covered by the Supreme Court's suo motu order in writ petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, which extended limitation periods. Furthermore, the petitioner cited Notification No. 13/2022-Central Tax dated July 5, 2022, issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, as providing protection for the delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's claim for refund, filed with a delay that fell within the period covered by the Supreme Court's suo motu order in writ petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, should be considered within the prescribed limitation period, considering the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on statutory timelines? 2. Whether Notification No. 13/2022-Central Tax dated July 5, 2022, issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, provides protection to the petitioner regarding the delay in filing the refund application? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the refund application occurred during the Covid-19 period and was covered by the Supreme Court's decision in suo motu writ petition (C) No. 3 of 2020. They further submitted that Notification No. 13/2022-Central Tax dated July 5, 2022, also protected them concerning the delay. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or the respondent authorities.