Gnrc Limited vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 Ors

Held

The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case, including the correctness of the limitation period or the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Instead, the Court directed the competent authority of the respondents to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 22.03.2022. This disposal must include providing the petitioner with an opportunity of hearing. The Court clarified that if the petitioner is aggrieved by any future order passed by the authority, they are entitled to avail appropriate remedies. The operative direction was to dispose of the representation after affording a hearing.

Facts

The petitioner, GNRC Limited, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of its GST refund claim. The petitioner had paid GST on the supply of medicines, consumables, and implants under a misconception, later realizing these services were exempt. The refund claim was rejected by an order dated 31.12.2021 on the grounds that the application was filed after the expiry of the two-year limitation period. The petitioner had previously filed an online representation on 22.03.2022 pursuant to a court order dated 11.03.2022, which was brought on record via an additional affidavit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the limitation period for filing a GST refund claim in this case is two years or three years, and if Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is applicable? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the limitation period for such claims should be three years, not two years. They contended that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, should also be applicable to their refund claim. Revenue's Argument: The revenue department argued that the application was filed after the expiry of the two-year limitation period, leading to the rejection of the refund claim. No specific statutory provisions or case law were explicitly mentioned by the revenue in the judgment regarding the limitation period.