Arup Saha Prop. Of M/S A.S. Enterprise vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CGST And Cx Bbd Bag Division Kolkata North Commissionerate And Ors

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated January 3, 2022, rejecting the petitioner's refund claim on the ground of limitation, was to be set aside. The Court's reasoning was based on considering the submissions of both parties and the referred judgments. The Court directed the respondent CGST Authority to reconsider the petitioner's refund application afresh on its merits, without being prejudiced by the point of limitation. The authority was instructed to pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law and the cited judgments within eight weeks from the date of communication of the order. The specific issue of whether the refund application was indeed beyond limitation or if condonation was permissible was not definitively decided, but the matter was remanded for fresh consideration on merits.

Facts

The petitioner, Arup Saha, challenged an order dated January 3, 2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of CGST & CX, Kolkata, rejecting his refund claim on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner argued that the rejection order was bad in law and relied on decisions from the Bombay High Court, Madras High Court, and a prior order of the same High Court. The respondent CGST Authority contended that the refund application was filed beyond the two-year period from the relevant date and that the petitioner had not sought condonation of delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order rejecting the refund claim on the ground of limitation is legally sustainable, considering the petitioner's reliance on various High Court judgments and a prior order of this Court? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned order rejecting the refund claim solely on the ground of limitation was bad in law. To support this, the petitioner relied on an unreported decision of the Bombay High Court in 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 in WP No.18156 of 2021 (M/s. GNC Infra LLP vs. Assistant Commissioner(Circle), Commercial Tax Department), and a prior order of this Court dated February 2, 2022, in WPA No.950 of 2022 (Imran Javed v. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Ballygunge Charge & Ors.). Respondent's arguments: The respondent CGST Authority argued that the refund application was made after the expiry of two years from the relevant date. Furthermore, the petitioner had not made any prayer for extension of the time limit or for condonation of the delay in filing the refund application.