Tvl. Shree Pins vs. The State Tax Officer (Main)

Held

The Court held that the suo motu extension of limitation granted by the Supreme Court in SMW(Civil).No.3 of 2020 and subsequent orders was applicable only to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. The application for refund of ITC, being an administrative action on the part of the revenue, did not fall within the scope of this extension. The Court noted that Rule 89 of the GST Rules provides for electronic filing of refund applications, which could have been made even during the pandemic. Furthermore, the petitioner had a full year from March 2019 to March 2020 to file the application before the pandemic, and no plausible reason was provided for not doing so. Consequently, the rejection of the refund application on grounds of delay was sustained. The Court also noted that the impugned order provided an avenue for appeal to the Deputy Commissioner, GST appeal, within 90 days, and granted the petitioner liberty to pursue this appellate remedy.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.SHREE PINS, sought a writ of certiorari mandamus to quash an order dated 09.06.2021 passed by the respondent, The State Tax Officer (Main), which rejected their application for refund of accumulated Input Tax Credit (ITC). The petitioner manufactures and trades hairpins and is registered under GSTIN.33AQIPA7420QIZQ. The application for refund of ITC due to an inverted tax structure for the period April 2018 to February 2019 was required to be filed by March 2020. However, the petitioner filed the application belatedly on 31.03.2021. The respondent rejected the application on grounds of delay, citing Section 54(14)(2) of the State GST Act. The petitioner challenged this rejection, arguing that the delay was due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the Supreme Court's suo motu extension of statutory limitations.

Key Issues

1. Whether the statutory limitation period for filing an application for refund of accumulated ITC, as prescribed under Section 54(14)(2) of the State GST Act, stands extended by the suo motu order of the Supreme Court in SMW(Civil).No.3 of 2020, considering the COVID-19 pandemic. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the Supreme Court's suo motu order on 23.03.2020, which extended all statutory limitations, and subsequent extensions, should apply to their refund application. They argued that the pandemic prevented them from filing the application within the original one-year period (ending March 2020), and their belated filing on 31.03.2021 fell within the extended period. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that the Supreme Court's extension was specifically for judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings and did not extend to administrative actions like refund applications. They further submitted that refund applications can be made electronically via Rule 89, which was possible even during the pandemic. The respondent also highlighted that the petitioner had a full year (March 2019 to March 2020) before the pandemic to file the application, and no plausible reason was provided for this inaction.