Back
VIBHU BAKHRU, AMIT MAHAJAN
Mahalaxmi Exports Through Its Proprietor Mr. Sushil Kohli – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Another – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J. - Issue notice.
2. The learned counsel for the respondents accept notice.
3. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning orders dated 28.01.2022 and 21.06.2023.
4. The petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the denial of refund of its unutilised Input Tax Credit (hereafter `ITC') in respect of zero-rated supplies.
5. The petitioner had filed an application on 28.11.2021, seeking refund of the unutilised ITC of a sum of Rs.9,45,816/- (Rs.4,72,908/- under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rs.4,72,908/- under the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017), for the period from April, 2018 to March, 2019.
6. The petitioner's application was acknowledged by the concerned authorities on 30.12.2021 by issuing requisite form (GST-RFD-02). Thereafter, on the same date, the concerned authorities issued a Show Cause Notice (hereafter `SCN') in Form GST-RFD-08, proposing to reject the petitioner's application as being barred by time.
7. According to the concerned authorities, the petitioner's application was not filed within the stipulated period of two years from the relevant date as required under Section 54(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax A
The exclusion period provided in the notification issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs allowed for the period affected by the COVID-19 pandemic to be excluded for the purposes of....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the exclusion of a specific period for filing refund applications under the CGST Act can impact the determination of whether an application....
The court emphasized the need for considering the petitioner's claim for condonation of delay and directed the matter to be reconsidered in light of the notification excluding the period for calculat....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the date of filing the application on the common portal should be considered as the date of filing the claim for refund, rejecting the content....
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.
A taxpayer is not required to make repeated applications for seeking a refund after succeeding in appellate proceedings, and the refund claim is required to be processed in accordance with the law.
The court established that the extension of the limitation period for GST refund applications due to COVID-19 applies retroactively to claims made during that period.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the refund claim for unutilised ITC must be made within the prescribed time limit and should be determined with reference to relevant document....
The court established that the limitation period for refund applications under the CGST Act is determined by the original filing date, not subsequent deficiencies.
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
