Md Ershad Alam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Revenue State Tax Ballygunge Charge And Ors
Facts
The petitioner, Md. Ershad Alam, challenged two orders dated December 24, 2020, and November 18, 2021, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax, Ballygunge Charge. These orders rejected the petitioner's claim for a GST refund on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner argued that while the refund claim was filed after the statutory two-year period, it was within the extended period granted by the Supreme Court and followed by other High Courts. The State's counsel conceded that the cited High Court decisions favored the petitioner and suggested remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
Held
The Court held that the impugned orders rejecting the refund claim solely on the ground of limitation were unsustainable. The Court accepted the petitioner's contention that the refund claim was filed within the extended period of limitation as per the Supreme Court's orders, which were followed by other High Courts. The reasoning was based on the concession made by the State's counsel, who acknowledged that the cited decisions of the Bombay and Madras High Courts were in favor of the petitioner. The Court's ratio is that GST refund claims filed within the extended limitation period, as per Supreme Court directives, should not be rejected on grounds of limitation. The impugned orders were set aside, and the respondent was directed to reconsider the petitioner's refund application afresh on merits, not on the point of limitation, and pass a reasoned order within eight weeks.
Key Issues
1. Whether the refund claim, filed beyond the statutory two-year period but within the period extended by Supreme Court orders, is barred by limitation? This issue turns on the interpretation and applicability of the Supreme Court's orders extending limitation periods to GST refund claims. The petitioner argued that the refund claim was valid as it fell within the extended limitation period, citing decisions from the Bombay High Court (Saiher Supply Chain Consulting Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Union of India & Anr.) and the Madras High Court (M/s. GNC Infra LLP Vs. Assistant Commissioner). The State conceded that the cited decisions covered the petitioner's case in their favor.
Sections Cited
Not specified in the judgment
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2022.
State Tax, Ballygunge Charge & Ors.
Mr. Anil Dugar, Mr. Rajarshi Chatterjee, Mr. Debabrata Ghosh. ……..for the petitioner.
Mr. A. Ray, Mr. T. M. Siddiqui, Mr. D. Ghosh. ………for the State.
Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties.
In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned orders dated 24th December, 2020 and 18th November, 2021 passed by the respondent GST authority rejecting the claim for refund to the petitioner on the ground of limitation.
Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of rejection is bad in law for the reason that petitioner had made the claim of refund in question though after the expiry of two years as prescribed under the statute but within the period extended by the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and followed by other High Union of India & Anr.) and
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.