Heatworks Private Limited And Anr vs. The Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Barasat Charge, 24 Parganas Circle And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Heatworks Private Limited, challenged an order dated January 18, 2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Barasat Charge, rejecting their claim for a Goods and Services Tax (GST) refund. The rejection was based on the ground of limitation. The petitioner argued that the impugned order was legally flawed. They 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*, as well as a prior order from the same High Court in *Imran Javed v. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Ballygunge Charge & Ors.*.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated January 18, 2022, rejecting the petitioner's refund claim on the ground of limitation, was bad in law. The Court considered the submissions of the petitioner and the referred judgments. The reasoning was that the refund claim should be considered on merits and not solely on the point of limitation, especially in light of the precedents cited. The ratio decidendi is that a refund claim rejected solely on limitation, without considering the merits and relevant judicial pronouncements, is unsustainable. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondent-GST authority to reconsider the petitioner's application afresh on merits, in accordance with law and considering the referred judgments, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks from the date of communication of the order. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated January 18, 2022, rejecting the petitioner's refund claim on the ground of limitation, is bad in law. The petitioner contended that the order of rejection was bad in law and relied on several High Court judgments, including 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*. They also referred to a previous order of the Court in *Imran Javed v. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Ballygunge Charge & Ors.*. The State did not record any specific arguments in opposition to the petitioner's contentions regarding the legal validity of the rejection order on the point of limitation.