M/S Sv Deccan Impex Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner's refund application was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on grounds of delay. Subsequently, a notification was issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs excluding a period for computing the limitation for refund applications.
Held
The Court set aside the order rejecting the refund application and directed the respondent to reconsider the application on its merits, taking into account the exclusion period provided by the notification.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the refund application should be condoned considering the subsequent notification excluding a period for limitation computation.
Sections Cited
Section 54, Rule 92(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER - -r/ PRESENT
N'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHITYAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.21317 of 2022 ORDER: Per th(, Hotlble tttc ( r,ri7 ,rr,-ir. Lll(r1 rli,'1rl(l,r/ Heard Mr. Sri Nara-r'an Toshnir'val, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Sapna Reddv, learned counsel for the respondents.
By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for the following relief: It is therefore pravcd th.It this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a $'rit of mandzulus or any other appropriate writ. order or clircction declaring the Refund Order No. l2l2022. dartcd l'+.03.2022, passcd by the l* respondent, rejecting the petitioner's refund application in ARN No. 4A36O 12202ti228l, dated 20,01.2022, as arbitrary, illegal, b:rd in larr', r'iolative of the principles of natural justice :Ipart frorn being r,iolative of Articles 14, l9(i )(g) and 26.1 of thc Constitution of lndia and to consequentlt scl asldc the samc :rnd dircct the respondents to gr:lIrt relund to thc pctitioner with interest under tht' provisiorrs of thc Centr:rl Goods & I rH
) Services Tax Act, 2017, in the interests ofjustice; and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
From the above, it is seen that petitioner's refund application dated 20.01.2022 seeking refund on account of unutilised input tax credit was rejected by respondent No.1 vide the order dated 14.O3.2O22 on the ground of delay.
In the hearing today we have been informed that Central Board of Indirect Ta-xes and Customs has issued Notification No.l3l2O22-Central Ta-x, dated 05.O7.2022, whereby thc Central Covernment has directed that while computing the period of limitation for dealing with refund application undcr SccLion 5-1 of the Central Goods and Services Ta-'r Act, 2017 read u.ith Rule 92(3) of the Central Goods and Serr.ices Ta-x Rules, 2017, th,e period from 01.03.2O2O to 28.O2.2022 should be excluded.
If that be the position, then the refund application of the petitioner is required to be heard and decided on merit by respondent No. I.
1 _)
Consequently, we set aside the order dated 14.O3.2022 passed by respondent No.1 arrd direct respondent No.1 to consider afresh the refund application of the petitioner dated 20.Ol .2022 on merit. 7 . Writ petition is accordingll, disposed of. Miscellaneous applicatrons pencling, if anv, shail stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs //// P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR seb#oru oFFrcER To,
The Assistant Commissioner, Secunderabad GST Commissionerate, 3-4- '1 1B/2, Elegant Maharaja, 2nd Floor, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad - 500 030, Telangana.
One CC to SRI.NARAYAN TOSHNIWAL, Advocate [OPUCI
One CC to M/s. SAPNA REDDY, Advocate IOPUCI
Two CD copies BM GJP Bq I
HIGH COURT DATED:1710212023 ORDER WP.No.21317 of 2022 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 6 l;:'. ' 2023 * ( f \11 TA 16- E H 1 e o o\) 24 I{AR l6 g1 2) $eL
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.