JUDGMENT

Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.

Petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed in appeal dated 27.10.2021 by the respondent no. 3, declining the refund of tax claimed by the petitioner on the ground that petitioner belatedly applied for it.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the application was made during Covid period and dealing with such exigency a subsequent circular has been issued by Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs dated 5th July, 2022, where under such applications are to be entertained and that the claim of the petitioner for refund is covered by such circular. Reliance is also placed upon an order passed by a coordinate bench in Writ Tax No. 173 of 2022, wherein reliance is placed upon the order passed by the Supreme Court on 10.1.2022 extending the time for making of such applications, which is reproduced hereinafter:-

"This writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:-

(A) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring Rule 90(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and corresponding Rule 90(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 as well as Paragraph 12 of the Circular F. No. 125/44/2019-GST dated 18.11.2019 issued by the respondent no.2, as being ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India and/or ultra vires Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Section 54 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017;

(B) In the alternate, issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring that the fresh applications for refund made pursuant to deficiency memorandums issued under Rule 90(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and corresponding Rule 90(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, will date back to the date of the original application for refund;

(C) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for records and quashing the impugned orders dated 01.07.2021 (Annexure-4) passed by respondent no.4 and consequently, direct respondent no.4 to process the claims of refund of the petitioner sans any objection of limitation"

3. Sri Nishant Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that petitioner does not want to press relief Nos. 'A' and 'B' and thus, the challenge to the validity of the provisions are withdrawn. Accordingly, the relief Nos. 'A' and 'B' are held to have not been pressed by the petitioner.

4. Petitioner filed refund application for tax period from April to June, 2018, July to September, 2018 and October to December, 2018, which have been rejected by the impugned order, passed by the respondent no.4.

5. As per impugned order, the period of limitation for filing refund application in terms of Section 54 (1) of the CGST/UPGST Act, had expired in September, 2020 and even period extended by the department has also expired on 30.11.2020. Thereafter, petitioner filed refund application on 31.03.2021, which has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground of delay.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the period between 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 has been directed by the Supreme Court to be excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, vide impugned order dated 10.01.2022 in Misc. Application No. 21 of 2022, Suo-Moto Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020. He, therefore, submits that refund application has been arbitrarily rejected by the respondent no.4.

7. Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the exclusion period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 as provi