M/S Akshar Developers vs. City And Industrial Corpo. Of Mah. LTD And Ors

Held

The Court noted that the Petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to make an appropriate application for refund under Section 54 of the GST Act. The Petitioner raised a concern that the refund claim might be time-barred, as the relevant date of service receipt was June 1, 2017, and the two-year limitation period under Section 54 of the GST Act would have expired. However, the Court observed that the writ petition was filed in May 2018. Therefore, the Court directed that the time spent from May 2018 until the date of the order should be excluded by the authority considering the refund application, for the purpose of determining the time bar. If, after this exclusion, the Petitioner's application is within the prescribed period, it would be decided on its merits. The Court did not decide the substantive claim for refund but facilitated its consideration by the appropriate authority.

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s. Akshar Developers, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court seeking a refund of Goods and Services Tax (GST), comprising CGST and SGST, paid to the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. (CIDCO). This GST was paid on an additional lease premium for a change of user of land and extension of construction time. CIDCO had collected this amount from the Petitioner and paid it to the Respondent-Revenue as GST. The Petitioner sought to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a refund application under Section 54 of the GST Act. However, the Petitioner noted that the two-year time limit for claiming a refund, calculated from the relevant date (date of receipt of service, which was June 1, 2017), would likely render a fresh application time-barred.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner can claim a refund of GST paid on additional lease premium under Section 54 of the GST Act, considering the two-year limitation period from the relevant date. Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the refund application would be time-barred as the relevant date of service receipt was June 1, 2017, and the refund claim was being made after the two-year period stipulated in Section 54 of the GST Act. The Petitioner sought liberty to make an application for refund. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the Respondent-Revenue regarding the refund claim itself. However, the Court's direction implies that the Revenue would consider the refund application on its merits after excluding the period the writ petition was pending.