Arup Saha vs. Assistant Commissioner CGST And Cx Bbd Bag Ii Division Kolkata North Commissionerate And Ors

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order dated January 3, 2022. The Court directed the respondent CGST Authority to reconsider the petitioner's refund application afresh on its merits, without being prejudiced by the ground of limitation. The authority was also instructed to consider the judgments relied upon by the petitioner. A reasoned and speaking order was to be passed within eight weeks from the date of communication of the Court's order. The ratio decidendi is that refund claims should be considered on merits, and rejection solely on limitation, especially when relevant judicial precedents exist, may be unsustainable. The operative direction was to reconsider the application on merits and pass a reasoned order.

Facts

The petitioner, Arup Saha, challenged an order dated January 3, 2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of CGST & CX, Kolkata, rejecting his claim for a Goods and Services Tax (GST) refund. The rejection was based on the ground of limitation. The petitioner argued that the impugned order was bad in law and relied on decisions from the Bombay High Court and Madras High Court, as well as a previous order from the same High Court. The respondent CGST Authority contended that the refund application was filed after the expiry of two years from the relevant date and that the petitioner had not sought any extension or condonation of delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated January 3, 2022, rejecting the petitioner's refund claim on the ground of limitation, is bad in law, particularly in light of relevant judicial precedents? (Question of law) Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned order rejecting the refund claim solely on the ground of limitation was legally unsustainable. To support this, the petitioner relied on an unreported decision of the Bombay High Court dated January 10, 2022 (Writ Petition(L) No.1275 of 2021 - Saiher Supply Chain Consulting Pvt. Ltd. vs The Union of India & Anr.), an unreported decision of the Madras High Court dated September 28, 2021 (WP No.18156 of 2021 - M/s. GNC Infra LLP vs. Assistant Commissioner(Circle), Commercial Tax Department), and the Court's own order dated February 2, 2022 (WPA No.950 of 2022 - Imran Javed v. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Ballygunge Charge & Ors.). Respondent's contentions: The respondent CGST Authority argued that the petitioner's application for refund was made after the expiry of the two-year period from the relevant date. Furthermore, the respondent noted that the petitioner had not made any specific prayer for extension of the time limit or for condonation of the delay in filing the refund application.