M/S Bajrang Agro Industries PVT. LTD. (Oil Division) vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the respondents erred in holding the refund application to be time-barred. The Court took note of the Supreme Court's order in Suo-motu W.P.(Civil) No. 3/2020, which extended the period of limitation. The learned counsel for the respondents also fairly admitted the mistake and conceded that the limitation would not be an impediment for the petitioner. Consequently, the impugned appellate order dated 24.08.2021 passed by the appellate authority (Respondent No. 2) was set aside. The matter was remanded back to the appellate authority (Respondent No. 2) to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within 30 days from the receipt of the order. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

Facts

M/s Bajrang Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Petitioner) supplied Lecithin to an SEZ unit for Rs. 8,82,841/- on 17.09.2018, paying IGST of Rs. 1,34,670/-. The Petitioner filed a refund application for this unutilised Input Tax Credit (ITC) on 12.10.2020, claiming it as a zero-rated supply with payment of tax. A deficiency memo was issued, followed by a refund rejection order dated 04.01.2021 by the Assistant Commissioner (Respondent No. 3). The rejection was based on the grounds that the application was filed after two years from the relevant date and lacked a required SEZ certificate. The Petitioner's statutory appeal before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) (Respondent No. 2) was also rejected on 24.08.2021, relying on Circular No. 157/13/2021-GST.

Key Issues

1. Whether the refund application filed by the petitioner is time-barred, considering the Supreme Court's order in Suo-motu W.P.(Civil) No. 3/2020 regarding extension of limitation? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the Supreme Court's order in Suo-motu W.P.(Civil) No. 3/2020 condoned delays for periods between 15.03.2020 and 14.03.2021, granting an additional 90 days or the remaining balance period, whichever is longer. Therefore, the refund application was not time-barred. The petitioner further argued that the Assistant Commissioner rejected the application solely on limitation grounds without considering the merits, and thus the matter should be remanded for a decision on merits. Revenue's arguments: The learned counsel for the respondents fairly admitted a mistake on the part of the respondents and conceded that Circular No. 157/13/2021-GST was not applicable to proceedings other than those concerning appeals before the Joint/Additional Commissioner(Appeals). The respondents admitted that the limitation would not come in the way of the petitioner.