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 documents and applicable provisions.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records and quashing the impugned order in Appeal No.08/2020 dated 06.07.2020, passed by the 1st respondent and consequently, directing to uphold the rejection of refund by the 2nd respondent, vide Refund Rejection Order GST-RFD-06 dated 30.05.2019 as being clearly arbitrary, beyond the jurisdiction vested upon the respondents and contrary to Section 16(2) of the IGST Act and Section 54 of the CGST Act and also in violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India.)

1. The petitioner assails the appellate order dated 06.07.2020 by which the refund claim made by the petitioner in respect of unutilised Input Tax Credit (ITC) was refused by affirming the order-in-original.

2. The petitioner states that it is an exporter of processed tea. It is a registered person under applicable GST laws and had availed of ITC in respect of the procurement of tea from the local market. As per Section 16(3) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (the IGST Act), the petitioner has two options while undertaking exports. The first option is to export goods without payment of IGST against a letter of undertaking and thereafter claim refund; and the second option is to pay IGST and thereafter claim refund of such IGST. After resorting to the first option, the petitioner claimed refund of ITC in respect of the period running from July 2017 to November 2017. While claiming refund, the petitioner did not calculate the refund entitlement with reference to the total ITC availed of in the tax period, but on the basis of the ITC attributable to the exports made in the month. According to the petitioner, this resulted in the petitioner claiming a lower refund than that to which the petitioner is entitled as per law. While claiming refund in the month of June 2018, the petitioner also claimed the additional refund to which the petitioner asserts entitlement for the period of July 2017 to November 2017 and for the month of May 2018. While the claim pertaining to the month of June 2018 was accepted, claims pertaining to May 2018 and July 2017 to November 2017 were rejected. When the matter was carried in appeal, the appellate authority affirmed the order of the assessing officer. This writ petition arises in the above facts and circumstances.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (the CGST Act) provides for a two year period within which a refund claim may be made. He also pointed  out that the said two year period is required to be computed from the relevant date. As per the explanation set out in Section 54, learned counsel submits that the relevant date is the date of export. Since the refund claim was made by the petitioner within two years from the date of the relevant export, he submits that the refund claim is within the period prescribed by the statute.

4. By placing reliance on Circular No.37/11/2018-GST dated 15.03.2018 (Circular No.37), learned counsel submits that the Central Board of Excise and Customs, GST Policy Wing, recognised that input goods or services may be availed of at a point in time earlier to the date of export of the end product and, therefore, there may be a time lag between the accumulation of unutilised ITC and the date of refund claim. According to learned counsel, the above mentioned Circular addresses this concern by permitting clubbing of refund claims for more than one calendar month or more than one quarter. As regards the stipulation in clause 11.2 of the Circular that the claim cannot be spread across different financial years, learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Pitambra Books Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (Pitambra Books), 2020 (34) G.S.T.L. 196 (Del.), wherein the Division Bench of the Delhi Hi