M/S Rafflesia Trading Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Goods And Services Tax Ballygunge Charge And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Rafflesia Trading Private Limited, challenged an order dated November 17, 2021, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Goods and Services Tax, Ballygunge Charge. The GST authority rejected the petitioner's refund claim on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner argued that the rejection order was bad in law and relied on decisions from the Bombay High Court and Madras High Court, as well as a previous order from the Calcutta High Court. The respondent GST authority, represented by Mr. Mukherjee, conceded that the cited decisions favoured the petitioner and suggested remanding the matter for fresh consideration.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated November 17, 2021, was bad in law. The Court considered the submissions of both parties, particularly the concession made by the respondent GST authority. The respondent acknowledged that the decisions relied upon by the petitioner were applicable to the present case and that the matter warranted a fresh examination. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order. The Court directed the first respondent to reconsider the petitioner's refund application afresh on its merits, specifically instructing that the application should not be rejected on the point of limitation. The respondent was also directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks from the date of communication of the order. The ratio decidendi is that where a refund claim is rejected solely on the ground of limitation, and relevant judicial precedents favouring the assessee on the interpretation of limitation provisions are brought to the notice of the revenue, and the revenue concedes to the applicability of such precedents, the matter should be remanded for consideration on merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated November 17, 2021, rejecting the petitioner's refund claim on the grounds of limitation, is bad in law? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the rejection order was bad in law. They supported this by citing an unreported decision of the Bombay High Court in *Saiher Supply Chain Consulting Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Union of India & Anr.* (January 10, 2022), an unreported decision of the Madras High Court in *M/s. GNC Infra LLP vs. Assistant Commissioner (Circle), Ekkatuthangal, Commercial Tax Department* (September 28, 2021), and a prior order of the Calcutta High Court in *Imran Javed v. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Ballygunge Charge & Ors.* (February 2, 2022). Revenue's Contention: The respondent GST authority, through their counsel, fairly submitted that the facts of the present case were covered by the aforesaid decisions in favour of the petitioner. They agreed that the matter should be remanded back to the officer concerned for a fresh consideration.