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 contention that the physical submission of the application along with documents should be the determining factor for the limitation period.

JUDGMENT :

N.V. ANJARIA, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dhaval Shah for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Priyank Lodha for the respondents.

2. By filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for direction against the respondents to re-credit amount of Rs. 3,37,076/- in electronic credit ledger of the petitioner with interest from the date of order dated 19.11.2019 till its realisation. The petitioner has also prayed to set aside the said order dated 19.11.2019.

2.1 By the said order dated 19.11.2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, respondent no. 3 herein, the refund claim of the petitioner came to be rejected on the ground that it was barred by limitation in terms of Explanation (2) (c) (1) of Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Further prayer is made to direct the respondents to pay the entire refund claim.

3. The petitioner no. 1 is engaged in the business of trading and clearance of finished excisable goods, namely analytical instruments and consumables such as mass spectroscopy, standard and impurities machinery, laboratory products, force scientific columns, cole parmer, modular gas generators, etc. which are mainly used by the pharmaceutical companies.

3.1 The petitioner supplied finished goods to pharmaceutical companies located in Special Economic Zone (SEZ) issuing tax invoices. It was stated that the tax invoices were examined and admitted by the competent officer of the Special Economic Zone. The supply of the goods by the petitioner was zero-rated supply within the purview of Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “IGST Act”). As per the said provision, supply of goods or services to Special Economic Zone developer or to the unit within SEZ is treated zero-rated supply. The zero-rated supplies are not subjected to payment of IGST, for, section 16 provides mechanism to clear the goods for zero-rated supply either under bond or Letter of Undertaking. Sub-Section (3) of Section 16 of IGST Act, shall be admissible if the goods are supplied on payment of IGST under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “CGST Act”).

3.2 For the supplies of finished goods during the period from August 2017 to October 2017, raising invoices, the petitioners claimed refund claim under Section 54 of the CGST Act. The application was filed on 28.12.2018 on common portal under Rule 89(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “CGST Rules”). Upon filing the refund claim for the amount of Rs. 3,48,497/- in FORM GST RFD-01 by the petitioner, for the aforesaid period, the ARN acknowledgement was issued on the receipt of the application.

3.3 Thereafter, the petitioner came to be served with the notice in the prescribed format under sub-rule (2) of Rule 90 of the CGST Rules, whereby the petitioner was asked to explain as to why the refund claim of Rs. 3,37,076/- should not be rejected on the ground of bar of limitation. By that notice, the petitioner was called upon to appear before respondent no. 3 authority within three days, that is, on 19.11.2019. It is the say of the petitioner that to his surprise, the order dated 19.11.2019 came to be issued whereby the refund of Rs. 11,421/- was sanctioned rejecting the claim of Rs. 3,37,076/- on the ground that it was time barred.

3.4 After receiving the aforementioned order, the petitioner addressed communication dated 19.11.2019 to respondent no. 3 Assistant Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, pointing out that proper notice was not issued to him and the notice was even otherwise given after a lapse of one year without raising any query or point out any deficiency. On 31.12.2019, the petitioner submitted an undertaking stating that they would not file an appeal against the rejection of refund claim and requested to give re-credit of the amount claimed, which was re