Date of Fresh Refund Application After Rectifying Deficiencies Can’t Be Considered for Purposes of Determining Period of Limitation | HC

Case Details: Sali P. Mathai v. State Tax Officer - [2024] 168 taxmann.com 538 (Kerala)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Gopinath P., J.
• Meera V. Menon & R. Sreejith, Advs. for the Petitioner.
• Jasmin M.M., Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the petitioner filed an application for a refund on 05.04.2021 seeking a refund of an amount of Rs. 17,46,210/-. In response to that application, the petitioner was served with communication dated 19.04.2021, informing the petitioner regarding certain deficiencies in the application for a refund. The petitioner thereafter filed a fresh application for a refund on 30.09.2021.

The fresh application was admittedly beyond the time specified in Section 54 of the CGST/SGST Acts and was therefore rejected. The petitioner contended that the rejection of the application filed by the petitioner on 30.09.2021 as being time-barred with reference to the provisions contained in Section 54 of the CGST/SGST Acts cannot be sustained in law. It was submitted that Section 54 of the CGST/SGST Acts does not contemplate the filing of a second application. Further, it was submitted that the requirement in Rule 90(3) of the CGST Rules to file a fresh application for a refund on deficiencies being intimated is not in tune with the statutory provisions.

High Court Held

The High Court observed that Rule 90(3) of the CGST Rules requires the filing of a fresh refund application after rectification of deficiencies pointed out in respect of the first application. However, the said sub-rule does not contemplate that the date of the fresh application has to be considered for the purposes of determining the period of limitation for filing an application for refund under Section 54(1) of the CGST/SGST Acts. The High Court held that the rejection of the application for refund filed by the petitioner on the ground that the second application filed by the petitioner was beyond the time specified in Section 54(1) of the CGST/SGST Acts cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed.