Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
TASHI RABSTAN, ACJ, PUNEET GUPTA
Hallmark – Appellant
Versus
Jammu and Kashmir Goods and Service Tax Department – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Tashi Rabstan – CJ(A)
1. The petitioner through the medium of present writ petition is seeking to quash deficiency memo (Form-GST-RFD-03) bearing reference No.Z00110200180922 dated 15.10.2020 issued by Assistant Commissioner, Goods and Services Tax, respondent No.2 herein, under Section 54 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, whereby the application for refund of GST paid by the petitioner concern has been rejected on the ground of limitation. The petitioner is also seeking a direction to the respondents to process and release the GST refund of petitioner.
2. The facts, as projected in the writ petition, are that the petitioner is a partnership concern engaged in the business of manufacturing of garments under the name and style of M/s Hallmark and is registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It is averred that the petitioner concern also transact outside the State by selling the products manufactured by it and every sale made outside the state falls under the category of outward supply and the output tax is charged. In the event of return of the goods, if any, the tax in the shape of GST already deposited, is adjusted in the Tax Liability of th
The court held that a refund application filed within the statutory period cannot be rejected on grounds of limitation, and the applicant must be afforded an opportunity to be heard before any reject....
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 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 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 court emphasized adherence to procedural due process in rejecting a refund application and allowing for appeal rights under the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an application for refund accompanied by the required documentary evidences cannot be ignored for the purposes of limitation, and Rule 90(3) c....
Voluntary payments made under a mistake are not subject to the limitation period for refund claims under Section 54(1) of the GST Act.
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
