Karamsar Poultry Appliances vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs CBIC & Ors.

Held

The Court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned orders dated April 19, 2022, and January 30, 2023. The Court found that the adjudicating authority had erred in rejecting the refund applications solely on the ground of limitation without considering the impact of the Supreme Court's order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 and Notification No. 13/2022. These measures explicitly extended the period for filing refund applications by excluding the period from March 1, 2020, to February 28, 2022. The Court reasoned that the revenue's concession validated the petitioner's contention. Consequently, the petitioner's refund applications were restored to the adjudicating authority at the stage they were on April 19, 2022. The authority was directed to consider the applications afresh expeditiously, within six weeks from the date of the order.

Facts

The petitioner, Karamsar Poultry Appliances, filed a writ petition challenging two orders dated April 19, 2022, which rejected their refund applications for the periods April 2018 to March 2019 and April 2019 to March 2020. The petitioner also challenged a subsequent order dated January 30, 2023, that dismissed their appeals against the earlier rejection orders. The sole ground for rejection of the refund applications was that they were filed beyond the period of limitation stipulated under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The revenue, represented by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) and others, did not contest the petitioner's claim.

Key Issues

1. Whether the refund applications filed by the petitioner were barred by limitation under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, considering the Supreme Court's order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 and Notification No. 13/2022 dated July 5, 2022. The petitioner argued that their refund applications should not have been rejected on grounds of limitation, as the relevant period for calculating limitation was extended by the Supreme Court's suo motu order and the subsequent notification issued by the CBIC. These judicial and administrative measures aimed to exclude the period from March 1, 2020, to February 28, 2022, for the purpose of calculating the limitation period for filing refund applications. The respondent (revenue) conceded that the impugned orders were passed without considering the Supreme Court's order and the CBIC notification. Therefore, the respondent did not present any arguments against the petitioner's claim.