Original Refund application date to be considered for the purpose of determining the limitation period, and not the subsequent rectified application date

Facts of the Case: In this case, the Petitioner filed writ petition to challenge rejection of their GST refund application by the authorities on the grounds of limitation. Refund application was filed for the refund of accumulated ITC due to an inverted duty tax structure. The application was initially filed manually because of the unavailability of an online module, as permitted by Circular No. 24/2017-GST. Refund application was later transferred between departments due to jurisdictional issues, leading to a delay. The Respondent issued a deficiency memo and subsequently a show cause notice, leading to the rejection of the refund claim on grounds of being time-barred. Also, argued that the mandatory filing through the GST portal, as required by Circular No. 125/2019, was not followed. The Petitioner argued that that the refund application was filed within the stipulated period as per relevant CGST circulars and provisions, and original filing date should be considered for the limitation period, not the subsequent rectified application date.

Held that : The Gujarat High Court examined whether the original refund application date should be considered for determining the limitation period or if the period starts from the filing of the rectified application after a deficiency memo was issued. The Court noted that the petitioner had initially filed the refund application within the statutory period. The court ruled that the time period from the date of the original filing to the date of communication of deficiencies should be excluded from the limitation period. Therefore, the petitioner’s refund application was considered to be within the permissible period.

Reliance placed on judgment in M/s. LA-Gajjar Machineries Private Limited v. Union of India, wherein held that the original refund application should be considered for the purpose of determining the limitation period, even if a subsequent application was filed after the issuance of a deficiency memo.  

To read the complete judgment 2024 taxo.online 1632