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.

JUDGMENT :

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hiren J. Trivedi for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Ayaan A. Patel for the respondents.

2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Ayaan Patel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent State.

3. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

“A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, orders or directions to quash and set aside impugned order dated 13/20.10.2021 passed by learned Commissioner (Appeals), GST & Central Excise, Rajkot (at Annexxure-F) and order dated 05.05.2021 passed by Assistant Commissioner, Central

GST Division-II, Morbi (at Annexure-E);

(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, orders or directions to the respondent authorities to immediately sanction the refund of Rs. 36,30,286/- filed vide application dated 25.03.2021 filed in form GST RFD-01A filed bearing Application Reference Number AA2403210917675; at ANN B

(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pay interest @ 9% to the petitioner herein on the amount of refund from the date of filing the refund application till the date on which the amount of refund is paid to the petitioner herein, as the same is arbitrarily and illegally withheld by the respondent authorities:

D) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant ex-parte, ad interim order in favour of the petitioner herein in terms of prayer clause 'A' and 'B' hereinabove;

(E) Such further relief(s) as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in the interest of justice for which act of kindness your Petitioners shall forever pray.”

4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a global hi-tech manufacturer of premium ceramics lifestyle solution and is engaged in the business of manufacture and export of tiles. The petitioner avails input tax credit on various inputs like coal. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner exports without payment of duty and is eligible to claim refund of accumulated input tax credit on cess against the export of goods without payment of duty.

5. As per section 54(3)(i) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (For short “the Act”), the petitioner company claimed the refund of input tax credit accumulated by filing refund application in Form RFD- 01 on 25.03.2021 for the period between April 2018 to January, 2019 aggregating to Rs.36,30,286/- as per Rule 89(1) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 (For short “the Rules”).

6. The petitioner company received show cause notice dated 25.03.2021 asking the petitioner company to show cause why the refund claim of the petitioner should not be rejected as time barred.

7. Petitioner company filed a detailed submission against the show cause notice dated 10.04.2021 and stated that for the purpose of refund of unutilised input tax credit in case of zero-rated supplies, Clause(e) of Explanation 2 to section 54 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 would be applicable.

8. The application of the petitioner company for refund came to be rejected by the respondents vide order dated 05.05.2021.

9. Being aggrieved by such rejection of refund application, the petitioner preferred an appeal reiterating its submissions made by it in response to the show cause notice.

10. The Appellate Commissioner rejected the appeal of the petitioner observing that as per section 54(1) read with provisions of section 54(3)(i) and Explanation 2(a) of section 54 of the Act, the refund of unutilised input tax credit on account of export of goods without payment of tax is to be filed within two years from the date as determined under Explanation 2(a) of section 54 of the Act. The Appellate Commissioner also held that time limit as per clause(e)