JUDGMENT :

R. D. DHANUKA, J.

1. Leave to amend is granted to amend the prayer Clause (c) and to correct the date of third refund application mentioned as ‘3.9.2020’ as ‘30.9.2020’. Amendment be carried out within a period of two days from today. Re-verification is dispensed with.

2. Rule.

3. Mr. Bubna, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 and Mr.Bangur, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 waives service of notice. By consent of learned counsel for the parties, Petition is heard finally.

4. By this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks declaration that, Rule 90(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 is ultravires the Constitution of India and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and consequently strike down the same. The Petitioner also a seeks writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the rejection Order dated 26th November 2020 and seeks an Order and direction to restore the third refund application dated 30th September 2020 of the Petitioner filed by the Respondent No.2 and to decide the same on merits.

5. The Petitioner filed the first refund application for the period July 2018 to September 2018 on 21st August 2020 online on the GST portal. The said application however was rejected by the Respondent No.2 on 5th September 2020 on the ground that there were certain deficiencies in the said application.

6. The Petitioner thereafter filed second refund application on 8th September 2020. The Respondent No.2 rejected the said second refund application by pointing out deficiency by Order dated 23rd September 2020.

7. The Petitioner thereafter filed third refund application on 30th September 2020. The Respondent No.2 however rejected the said third refund application by Order dated 26th November 2020 on the ground that the said application was time barred. The Petitioner filed this Writ Petition inter-alia praying for restoration of the third refund application and for various other reliefs.

8. Mr.Patkar, learned counsel for Petitioner invited our attention to the impugned Order passed by the Respondent No.2 on 26th November 2020 rejecting the third refund application filed by the Petitioner on the ground of time barred refund application. Learned counsel invited our attention to the Order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 23rd March 2020 in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (Order dated 23rd March 2020), reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 343, in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020, and more particularly paragraph Nos.2 and 3 which read thus :

“2. To obviate such difficulties and to ensure that lawyers/litigants do not have to come physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunals across the country including this Court, it is hereby ordered that a period of limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or Special Laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended w.e.f. 15th March 2020 till further order/s to be passed by this Court in present proceedings.

3. We are exercising this power under Article 142 read with Article 141 of the Constitution of India and declare that this Order is a binding Order within the meaning of Article 141 on all Courts/Tribunals and authorities.”

9. Learned counsel also invited our attention to the Order dated 23rd September 2021 in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (Order dated 23rd September 2021), reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 947, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Misc. Application No. 665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020, more particularly paragraph No.8. He submits that, the third refund application filed by the Petitioner on 30th September 2020 was filed between the said period i.e. 15th March 2020 and 2nd October 2021. He submits that in view of the extension granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by exercising powers under Article 142 read with 141 declaring that the said Order was binding Order within t