SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 1583

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
BHARAT OIL TRADERS TH MANAV MAHAJAN – Appellant
Versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CGST SAMBA AND ANOTHER – Respondent
WP(C) 192 / 2023



##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

WP(C) No. 192/2023

Reserved on : 09.07.2025

Pronounced on : 30.12.2025

Uploaded on : 02.01.2026

Whether the operative part or full

judgment is pronounced : Full

Bharat Oil Traders

…. Petitioner/Appellant(s)

Through:- Mr. Sachin Sharma, Advocate

V/s

Assistant Commissioner & anr.

…..Respondent(s)

Through:- Mr. Rohan Nanda, Advocate

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AJEEM, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

Per : Sindhu Sharma-J

1. The petitioner submits that it is a partnership firm engaged in the

business of refilling and sale of edible oil and ghee, and is duly registered

under the State and Central Goods and Services Tax Acts, 2017. The

petitioner‟s business operations involve a situation where the rate of tax

applicable on inputs is higher than the rate applicable on outward

supplies, resulting in an “Inverted Tax Structure.” Consequently, under

Section 54(3)(ii) of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, the petitioner is entitled

to claim a refund of the accumulated input tax credit.

WP(C) No. 192 of 2023 Page 1 of 12

##PAGE2##

2. Section 54 of the CGST Act provides that any person claiming a

refund of tax may make an application before the expiry of two years

from the “relevant date.” For the purpose of refund of unutilized input tax

credit under the inverted duty structure, the term “relevant date” is defined

in Explanation (2)(e) to Section 54.

3. Up to 31.01.2019, the term “relevant date” was defined to mean

“the end of the financial year in which such claim for refund arises.”

However, by virtue of the Amendment Act No. 31 of 2018, which came

into force with effect from 01.02.2019, the definition of “relevant date”

was substituted to mean “the due date for furnishing the return under

Section 39 for the period in which the claim for refund arises.”

4. The petitioner submits that the amended provision of Section 54(1),

which came into effect from 01.02.2019, operates prospectively and not

retrospectively, unless its retrospective application is beneficial to the

assessee. Therefore, for periods where the right to claim refund had

already accrued prior to the amendment, the un-amended definition of

“relevant date” would continue to apply.

5. It has been submitted that in the present case, the refund claims

under Section 54(3)(ii) pertain to the periods 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2019,

corresponding to Financial Years 2017–18 and 2018–19 respectively.

Accordingly, under the un-amended provisions of Section 54(1), the last

date for filing the refund claim for the period July 2017 to March 2018

was 31.03.2020, i.e., two years from the end of the relevant financial year.

Subsequent to the amendment, for the period from February 2018

WP(C) No. 192 of 2023 Page 2 of 12

##PAGE3##

onwards, the refund application could be made before the expiry of two

years from the due date for furnishing the return under Section 39. Thus,

the application for refund for February 2018 could be filed up to March

2020, for March 2018 up to April 2020, and so on.

6. The petitioner filed its refund application on 02.02.2021. It is

submitted that, in view of Notification No. 13/2022 dated 05.07.2022 read

with the suo motu orders of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court excluding the

period from 01.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 from the computation of limitation

owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, the refund claim filed on 02.02.2021

is well within the prescribed limitation period.

7. The contention of the petitioner is that for the period July 2017 to

January 2018, the refund application could have been filed up to March

2020 (i.e., two years from the end of the financial year) under the pre-

amended law. For the period February 2018 onwards, the refund

application could be made up to March 2020 and thereafter, in terms of

the amended provisions prescribing a two-year limitation from the due

date of furnishing the return under Section 39. Since the limitation period

for both the above periods i.e., July 2017 to January 2018 and February

2018 to March 2019 expired in March 20

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top