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

Held

The Court set aside the impugned order dated January 3, 2022, and directed the respondent CGST authority to reconsider the petitioner's refund application afresh on its merits, without being influenced by the ground of limitation. The Court also directed that the reconsideration should be in accordance with law and taking into account the judgments cited by the petitioner. A reasoned and speaking order is to be passed within eight weeks from the communication of this order. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the primary finding was that the refund claim should be considered on merits, implying that the limitation ground was not a definitive bar without further consideration.

Facts

The petitioner, Arup Saha, challenged an order dated January 3, 2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of CGST & CX, B.B.D. Bag II Division, Kolkata North Commissionerate. This order rejected the petitioner's claim for a GST refund on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner argued that the rejection order was legally flawed and relied on decisions from the Bombay High Court, Madras High Court, and a previous order of the same High Court. The respondent CGST authority contended that the refund application was filed beyond the two-year limitation period from the relevant date, and no prayer for extension or condonation of delay was made.

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? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned order rejecting the refund claim on the ground of limitation was bad in law. To support this, the petitioner relied on the 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 an order dated February 2, 2022, passed 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 and that the petitioner had not sought any extension of time or condonation of delay in filing the application.