Rp Comtrade Private Limited And Anr. vs. The Assistant Commissioner , CGST And Cx And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, RP Comtrade Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 29th November, 2022, passed by the appellate authority. This order dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld the adjudicating authority's orders dated 2nd December, 2020, and 30th December, 2020. The core of the dispute was the denial of the petitioner's refund claim under the CGST Act due to the alleged delay in filing the application beyond the statutory period. The petitioner contended that the delay period fell within the COVID-19 pandemic, and their application was filed during this period. They relied on the Supreme Court's suo motu order in W.P.(C) No. 3 of 2020 and a subsequent notification by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) dated 5th July, 2022.

Held

The Court set aside both the impugned order of the appellate authority and the orders of the adjudicating authority. The Court found merit in the petitioner's submissions, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's suo motu order in W.P.(C) No. 3 of 2020 and CBIC Notification No. 13/2022-Central Tax dated 5th July, 2022. The reasoning was that these pronouncements and notifications provided protection for delays occurring during the specified period. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority was directed to reconsider the petitioner's refund claim afresh, passing a speaking order. This reconsideration must take into account the aforementioned CBIC notification. If the adjudicating authority determines that the petitioner's case falls within the scope of the notification concerning limitation, relief shall be granted, subject to verification of the genuineness of the transactions. The adjudicating authority was given eight weeks to conclude these proceedings after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's refund claim, filed beyond the statutory period but within the COVID-19 period, is maintainable in light of the Supreme Court's suo motu order in W.P.(C) No. 3 of 2020 and CBIC Notification No. 13/2022-Central Tax dated 5th July, 2022? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the refund application occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. They contended that the Supreme Court's suo motu order in W.P.(C) No. 3 of 2020, which extended timelines for various legal proceedings, should cover their delay. Furthermore, they relied on CBIC Notification No. 13/2022-Central Tax dated 5th July, 2022, which they believed protected them regarding the period of limitation in question. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent revenue authorities.