Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, UDAY KUMAR, JJ.
Suraj Mangar - Appellant
Vs.
The Assistant Commissioner of West Bengal State Tax and Others - Respondent
M.A.T. No.104 of 2024, IA No: CAN 1 of 2024 Arising out of W.P.A. No. 1905 of 2023
Decided On : 30-07-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments pertaining to violation of timelines. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. contention regarding extension of timelines. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. issues raised for consideration. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. analysis of relevant provisions. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 6. interpreting timelines under the act. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 7. interpretation of mandatory timelines. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 8. consideration for issuing show cause notices. (Para 38 , 39) |
| 9. critique of respondent's arguments. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 10. legal interpretation concerning timelines. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47) |
| 11. analyzing non-adherence to statutory timelines. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53) |
| 12. scope of authority of gst and customs. (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63) |
| 13. judicial interpretation of the learned single judge. (Para 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69) |
| 14. final order and directions. (Para 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74) |
JUDGMENT :
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.
1. The present appeal arises out of an order dated January 9, 2023, whereby a writ petition filed by the present appellant/applicant challenging an order passed by the Appellate Authority, confirming an order passed under Section 54 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), whereby the application filed by the appellant for refund of tax was rejected.
2. The timelines in the case are as follows:
| Dates | Events |
| December 24, 2021 | Application for refund filed. |
| January 10, 2022 | Acknowledgment issued under Rule 90(2) of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (for short, "the Rules"). |
| February 8, 2022 | Show Cause Notice issued under Rule 92(3). |
| February 23, 2023 | Date of reply fixed as per Show Cause Notice dated February 8, 2022. |
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the respondent-Authorities failed to adhere to the timelines stipulated under the Act and the Rules. Whereas Section 54(7) of the Act provides that the Proper Officer (PO) shall issue the order under sub-section (5) of Section 54 within 60 days from the date of receipt of the application, complete in all respect, in the present case, the notice itself, issued under Rule 92(3) of the Rules, stipulated the date of reply on February 23, 2022, that is, beyond the period of 60 days. Also, the acknowledgment under Rule 92(3) was issued on January 10, 2022, beyond the period of 15 days from the date of the application, as specified under the Rules. It is argued that the timelines provided under the Act and the Rules being mandatory, contravention of the same vitiates the entire order.
4. Learned counsel relies on the judgment passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the matter of Smartadmedia v. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Service Tax, reported at (2024) 19 Centax 106 (Del.), where the Division Bench had relied on Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, in Clause 34 of which it was specified that all tax authorities are advised to issue the final sanction order in FORM GST RFD-06 and the payment order in FORM GST RFD-05 within 45 days from the date of generation of ARN (Application Reference Number), so that the disbursement is completed within 60 days.
5. Learned counsel also relies on another Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in the matter of M.D. Securities Pvt. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer Avato, reported at (2025) 31 Centax 138 (Del.), where the Division Bench relied on a previous judgment of the Delhi High Court in Jian International v. Commissioner of Delhi goods and Services Tax, reported at 2020 (39) G.S.T.L. 385 (Del.) where, in view of the non- adherence to the timelines stipulated in Rule 90 of the Central Rules (similar to the West Bengal Rules), it was held that the respondent- Authority had lost the right to point out any deficiency in the petitioner’s refund app
The court held that the timelines under Section 54(7) of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act are mandatory and non-compliance invalidates the decision-making process.
The court ruled that the denial of a tax refund on grounds of limitation was wrong, emphasizing the principle of unjust enrichment, and clarified that the time limit of two years for refund applicati....
The filing of an application for refund in the prescribed form and manner stops the running of the limitation period, even if further documents or clarifications are sought by the proper officer.
The court established that the limitation period for refund applications under the CGST Act is determined by the original filing date, not subsequent deficiencies.
The rejection of refund claims without providing an opportunity of being heard was a violation of the proviso to sub-rule (3) of rule 92 of the CGST Rules and the principles of natural justice, rende....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the applicant is entitled to interest from the date immediately after the expiry of sixty days from the date of the first application for refu....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
