Gamma Gaana Limited vs. Union Of INDIA And 3 Others

Facts

The petitioner, Gamma Gaana Limited, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of its refund applications for tax periods April-June 2018, July-September 2018, and October-December 2018. The refund applications were rejected by Respondent No. 4 on the grounds of delay, as they were filed on March 31, 2021, after the prescribed limitation period, which had expired in September 2020 and was extended by the department until November 30, 2020. The petitioner argued that the period between March 15, 2020, and February 28, 2022, should be excluded for limitation purposes, citing a Supreme Court order. The revenue did not dispute this exclusion period.

Held

The Court held that the refund applications of the petitioner could not have been rejected by Respondent No. 4 solely on the ground of delay, in light of the Supreme Court's order dated January 10, 2022. This order directed the exclusion of the period from March 15, 2020, to February 28, 2022, for the purposes of limitation prescribed under any general or special laws for all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. Consequently, the impugned order rejecting the refund applications on grounds of delay was found unsustainable and was quashed. The matter was remitted back to Respondent No. 4 to decide the refund application afresh, in accordance with the law, by a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within six weeks, after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Court noted that the petitioner had withdrawn reliefs A and B, challenging the validity of Rule 90(3) and the circular.

Key Issues

1. Whether Rule 90(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, and corresponding Rule 90(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, and Paragraph 12 of Circular F. No. 125/44/2019-GST dated 18.11.2019 are ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India and/or Section 54 of the CGST Act and UPGST Act. (Petitioner's contention: The provisions are arbitrary and discriminatory. Revenue's contention: Not recorded. Note: Petitioner later withdrew this relief.) 2. Whether fresh applications for refund made pursuant to deficiency memorandums issued under Rule 90(3) should date back to the original application date. (Petitioner's contention: Such applications should retain the original date. Revenue's contention: Not recorded. Note: Petitioner later withdrew this relief.) 3. Whether the refund applications filed by the petitioner on March 31, 2021, were barred by limitation, considering the Supreme Court's directions regarding the exclusion of the period from March 15, 2020, to February 28, 2022, for computing limitation. (Petitioner's contention: The refund applications should not have been rejected as the exclusion period applies. Revenue's contention: Did not dispute the exclusion period.)