Refund applications for taxes paid under a mistake of law are not bound by strict statutory limits when the underlying tax was invalid.

Order:

R. Raghunandan Rao, J.

As identical issues are involved in the present set of cases and as the writ petitioner and the respondents are same, they are being disposed of by way of this common order.

2. Heard Sri M. Sai Sundeep, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent, learned G.P. for Revenue appearing for the 2^nd respondent and Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 6.

3. The petitioner is a registered person and is in the business of import of agricultural products for onward use and sale within India. The petitioner had imported certain agricultural products on CIF basis and paid GST on ocean freight charges, on reverse charge mechanism basis, for various months in 2017. The petitioner had paid GST, on the ocean freight charges, on account of the notification No.8/2017-GST and Notification No.10/2017-GST. These notifications were challenged before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd., vs Union of India, [2020 SCC OnLine Guj 736] and came to be struck down, by judgment dated 23.01.2020. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the central Government had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which, by judgment, dated 19.05.2022, in Union of India and Anr. vs M/s. Mohit Minerals , [61 GSTL 257] , had affirmed the view of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat and set aside these notifications.

4. The petitioner, after the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, filed applications, dated 30.03.2023, for refund of GST, paid on ocean freight charges, in 2017. These applications came to be dismissed by separate orders, dated 25.05.2023. Aggrieved by these orders of rejection, the petitioner approached the appellate authority, by appeal Nos. 63 to 67 of 2023 (G) GST. All the 5 appeals were dismissed, by way of a common order, dated 27.02.2024. Aggrieved by these orders, the present set of writ petitions have been filed.

5. The details of the writ petitions and dates of applications are given below.

6. The contention of the petitioner was that no GST could be levied on ocean freight charges paid, on CIF basis, for goods imported into India, by virtue of striking down of Notification Nos.8 & 10/2017 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Consequently, GST, on ocean freight charges, paid by the petitioner, would have to be refunded to the petitioner. Both the original authority and the appellate authority took the view that an application for refund could be made, within a period of two years from the date of filing of the return, under which the GST which is sought to be refunded, was paid and that the said period of limitation has expired and no refund application was maintainable. There is no dispute that the applications for refund have been filed beyond the time stipulated under section 54 of the G.S.T. Act.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in Comsol Energy Private Limited vs. State of Gujarat , 2020 SCC Online Guj 3601 = (2021) 55 GSTL 390 and the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court