Indian Port Rail And Ropeway Corporation Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Cgtst And Cx Taratala I Division Kolkata And Ors
Held
The Court held that while the impugned order rejecting the refund claim was passed on May 18, 2022, a subsequent notification, Notification No. 13/2022-Central Tax dated July 5, 2022, was issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs. This notification covers the period relevant to the petitioner's refund claim. In the interest of justice, the Court set aside the impugned order. The Court remanded the matter back to the concerned authority for passing a fresh order. This fresh order is to be passed after considering the aforementioned notification dated July 5, 2022, and should be confined to the period covered by that notification. The authority was directed to pass the fresh order within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Facts
The petitioner, Indian Port Rail & Ropeway Corporation Limited, filed writ petitions challenging an order dated May 18, 2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of CGST & CX, Taratala – I Division, Kolkata South Commissionerate. This order rejected the petitioner's application for a refund claim on the grounds of being barred by limitation. The petitioner relied on Notification No. 13/2022-Central Tax, dated July 5, 2022, issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, which was issued after the impugned order but covered the period of the petitioner's refund claim. The revenue authority is the Assistant Commissioner of CGST & CX.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner's refund claim application was barred by limitation, considering the provisions of the CGST Act and relevant notifications. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that their refund claim should be considered valid, relying on Notification No. 13/2022-Central Tax dated July 5, 2022. They contended that this notification, although issued after the rejection order, covers the period relevant to their claim and should be taken into account in the interest of justice. Revenue's contention: The revenue authority rejected the refund claim on the ground of limitation. The judgment does not explicitly record any specific arguments made by the revenue authority beyond the basis for the impugned order.
Sections Cited
CGST Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2022. p.b. Sl. No.
W.P.A. 17056 of 2022 With WPA 17061 of 2022 With WPA 17064 of 2022 With WPA 17067 of 2022 Indian Port Rail & Ropeway & CX, Taratala – I Division, Kolkata South Commissionerate & Ors. Mr. Akshat Agarwal. ……..for the petitioner. Mr. K. K. Maiti, Mr. Tapan Bhanja, Mr. Abhradip Maity, Ms. Aishwarya Rajyashree. ………for the CGST authority. Mr. Kaustav Chandra Das. ……….for the UOI, Mr. Kaushik Kanti Maiti, Ms. Manasi Mukherjee. ………for the CGST authority in WPA 17061 of 2022. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order of rejection dated 18th May, 2022 of the petitioner’s application for claim of refund, on the ground of being barred by limitation. Petitioner, in support of his claim, has relied on a recent Notification No.13/2022- Central Tax, dated 5th July, 2022 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, though, the aforesaid
2 notification was not in existence at the time of passing the impugned order by the adjudicating authority, but, factual and le
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.