Refund applications under CGST/BGST should adhere to Section 54 timelines while considering interpretations under Section 77 and relevant circular provisions.

JUDGMENT :

RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned SC-11 for the State Respondents.

2. The petitioner in the present writ application is seeking the following reliefs:-

“(i) For issuing a writ of certioriari or any other appropriate writ quashing/ setting aside the Order for rejection of Refund Application filed by the Petitioner on the ground of being barred by the law of limitation as prescribed under Section 54 of BGST/CGST Tax, Act, 2017 vide order dated 06.05.2024 (as contained in Annexure-P4) and refund rejection order vide Reference No- ZD100524003509V, dated 06.05.2024 in the FORM RFD-06 (as contained in Annexure-P-4A) passed by the Respondent No-6 rejecting the refund of excess tax paid of Rs.2,54,097.00 under the CGST and Rs.2,54,097.00 under the BGST Act total amounting to Rs.5,08,194.00 relating to January 2018 for the assessment Year 2017-2018 in violation of the provision of Section 77 BGST/CGST Act, 2017 read with sub-rule (1A) of Rule 89 BGST/CGST Rule 2017 which render the entire proceedings of the Respondent No-6 being violative of the BGST/CGST Act and Rules and thus the order is liable to be set aside.

(ii) For issuing of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing/ setting aside the order dated 06.05.2024 (as contained in Annexure-P4) and refund rejection order vide Reference No- ZD100524003509V, dated 06.05.2024 in the FORM RFD-06 (as contained in Annexure-P-4A) passed by the Respondent No-6 rejecting refund application of the Petitioner on the ground of limitation as prescribed under Section 54 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act , 2017 when admittedly the case of the petitioner is that of payment of tax under wrong head which is to be governed by Section 77 of the Act, which in no manner prescribes any period of limitation for filing any refund claims and act of the Respondent No-6 is illegal and de hors the schem of the Goods and Services Tax Act and Rules2017.

(iii) For a direction upon the respondents to show cause as to how and under what authority of law the claim of the petitioner for refund of excess tax paid for the period Jan, 2018 for the assessment year 2017-18 was rejected which was paid on 04.03.2023 vide DRC-03 subsequent to Audit Objection and Refund Application was filed on 17.01.2024 which was well within 2 years from the date of payment which is relevant date for calculation of Limitation in view of the provision of Section 77  BGST/CGST Act, 2017 read with sub-rule (1A) of Rule 89 BGST/CGST Rule 2017.

(iv) For issuing of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing/ setting aside the order dated 06.05.2024 (as contained in Annexure-P4) and refund rejection order vide Reference No- ZD100524003509V, dated 06.05.2024 in the FORM RFD-06 (as contained in Annexure-P-4A) passed by the Respondent No-6 rejecting refund application of the Petitioner in violation of the Circular bearing No. 162/18/2021-GST, dated 25.09.2021 issued by the CBIC on the subject/ clarification in respect to refund to tax specified in section 77(i) of the CGSt Act and section 19(i) of the IGST Act and thus the order is liable to be set aside.

(v) For issuing of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing/ setting aside the order dated 06.05.2024 (as contained in Annexure-P4) and refund rejection order vide Reference No-ZD100524003509V, dated 06.05.2024 in the FORM RFD-06 (as contained in Annexure-P-4A) passed by the Respondent No-6 rejecting refund application of the Petitioner in violation of Notification No. 35/2021-Central Tax, dated 24.09.2021 which inserted sub-rule (1A) of rule 89 of CGST Rules, 2017 which provide that refund app