Shah Brothers And Another vs. Commissioner Of State Tax And Ors

Facts

The petitioners, Shah Brothers and Another, challenged two orders dated March 31, 2021, and September 22, 2021, passed by the respondent GST authority. These orders rejected the petitioner's claim for a GST refund on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner argued that although their refund claim was filed after the statutory two-year period, it was within the extended period granted by an order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and followed by various High Courts. The petitioner relied on decisions from the Bombay High Court in "Saiher Supply Chain Consulting Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Union of India & Anr." and the Madras High Court in "M/s. GNC Infra LLP Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Circle) Ekkatuthangal, Commercial Tax Department". The State, represented by its advocate, conceded that the cited decisions favoured the petitioner and suggested remanding the matter for fresh consideration.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned orders dated March 31, 2021, and September 22, 2021. The Court directed the respondent authority to reconsider the petitioner's refund application afresh on its merits, explicitly excluding the ground of limitation. The reasoning was based on the concession made by the State's counsel, who acknowledged that the decisions relied upon by the petitioner were favourable. The Court also noted the petitioner's argument that their claim, though belated, fell within an extended period recognized by the Supreme Court and other High Courts. The authority was instructed to pass a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks of the order's communication. The specific GST provisions relating to the limitation period for refund claims were implicitly considered but not explicitly named in the judgment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the refund claim filed by the petitioner, though beyond the statutory two-year period, is maintainable within the extended period as per Supreme Court orders and High Court precedents, thereby challenging the rejection on the ground of limitation under the relevant GST provisions? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that their refund claim, while filed after the statutory two-year period, was within the extended period permitted by Supreme Court orders, which were also followed by other High Courts. They cited the Bombay High Court's decision in "Saiher Supply Chain Consulting Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Union of India & Anr." and the Madras High Court's decision in "M/s. GNC Infra LLP Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Circle) Ekkatuthangal, Commercial Tax Department" to support their claim. Revenue's Contention: The advocate for the State fairly submitted that the cited decisions covered the present case in favour of the petitioner and that the matter should be remanded back to the concerned officer for a fresh consideration on merits.