The exclusion of the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 in computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, influenced the court's decision in allowing the refund claim.

ORDER :

A.V.SESHA SAI, J.

Heard Sri K.Adi Siva Vara Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y.N.Vivekananda, learned Government Pleader and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs for the respondents.

2. In the present Writ Petition, challenge is to the order dated 30.04.2021 passed by respondent No.1-The Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax, rejecting the refund claim of the petitioner for the tax period, commencing from April, 2018 to January, 2019, relying on “Relevant date” prescribed under explanation (2) of Section 54 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner herein is a registered dealer on the rolls of respondent No.1 under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and is engaged in the business of process of raw granite blocks and manufacture and export sales of polished granite slabs/tiles. The petitioner herein claimed refund of Rs.46,72,862/- towards tax period commencing from April, 2018 to March, 2019 in Form RFD-01 dated 13.03.2021 under subsection (3) of Section 54 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. Respondent No.1 herein acknowledged the same, vide Form RFD-02 dated 26.03.2021. Thereafter, respondent No.1 herein issued a show cause notice in Form GST RFD-08 dated 26.03.2021. In response to the same, the petitioner herein filed a reply on 02.04.2021, wherein the petitioner herein sought to place reliance on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 dated 08.03.2021. Respondent No.1, by way of an order dated 30.04.2021, which is the subject matter of the present Writ Petition, held that the petitioner herein is entitled for the refund of Rs.6,07,516/- for the period from February, 2019 to March, 2019 as per Rule 89(5) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017, read with Section 54 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and rejected the claim of the petitioner for the period commencing from April, 2018 to January, 2019. In the above background, the petitioner herein has come up before this Court with the present Writ Petition, obviously, aggrieved by the rejection of his claim by respondent No.1 for the period commencing from April, 2018 to January, 2019.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order of respondent No.1, to the extent the same went against the petitioner herein, rejecting the petitioner’s claim for the period commencing from April, 2018 to January, 2019, is illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the provisions of Section 54 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and Rule 89(5) of the Rules framed thereunder. It is further contended by the learned counsel that while dealing with the issue, respondent No.1 herein failed to take into consideration the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 dated 08.03.2021. It is further contended by the learned counsel that when a similar issue fell for consideration before this Court, this Court, by way of an order dated 08.02.2022 in W.P.No.3049 of 2022, had set aside the order impugned in the said Writ Petition and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. In fact, a copy of the said order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.3049 of 2022 is filed along with the reply affidavit of the writ petitioner.

4. While strongly resisting the Writ Petition, it is contended by the learned Senior Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents, that as the petitioner herein did not make any claim within the time stipulated in the statute, the petitioner herein is not entitled to any relief from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. The information available before this Court, in clear and vivid terms, reveals that seeking refund of the amount for the period, commencing from April, 2018 to March, 2019, the petitioner herein made an application on 13.03.2021 and there is absolutely no dispute with regard to eit