HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2137/2021

M/s Triveni Electrodes, F-78, Brij Industrial Area, Bharatpur

Through Its Partner Sh. Pooran Mal Agrawal S/o Late Sh. Daulat

Ram Agrawal, R/o. A-116, Ranjeet Nagar, Bharatpur

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

Union Of India, Through Secretary, Finance Department,

Government Of India, New Delhi

2.

The Chief Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax,

Statue Circle, C Scheme, Jaipur

3.

The Commissioner, State Goods And Service Tax, Kar

Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur

4.

The Assistant Commissioner, Rajasthan, Goods And

Services Tax Department, Circle-B, Bharatpur

----Respondents

Connected With

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2138/2021

M/s Yogesh Industries And Oil Mills, Nai Mandi, Ranjeet Nagar,

Bharatpur Through Its Partner Sh. Dinesh Agrawal S/o Sh.

Phoolchand Aged 64 Years, R/o. Ranjeet Nagar, Bharatpur

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

Union Of India, Through Secretary, Finance Department,

Government Of India, New Delhi

2.

The Chief Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax,

Statue Circle, C Scheme, Jaipur

3.

The Commissioner, State Goods And Service Tax, Kar

Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur

4.

The Assistant Commissioner, Rajasthan, Goods And

Services Tax Department, Circle-B, Bharatpur

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Pankaj Ghiya through VC

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. R.D Rastogi, ASG through VC with

Mr. Akshay Bhardwaj

Mr. M.S Singhvi, AG through VC with

(2 of 3)

[CW-2137/2021]

Mr. Siddhanth Jain

Mr. Kinshuk Jain through VC

Mr. Puneet Singhvi through VC

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Order

20/01/2022

Since the facts are similar in both these petitions, we may

notice from Writ Petition No. 2137/2021.

The petitioner has challenged the vires of Section 54 of the

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rajasthan Goods

and Services Tax Act, 2017 as ultra vires to the Constitution. The

petitioner has also prayed for a direction to set-aside a deficiency

memo dated 04.12.2020 as annexure-A/3 to the writ petition.

The petitioner had claimed for refund of the accumulated

credit in the ledger account. The competent authority on such

claim issued the impugned communication dated 19.12.2020. One

of the grounds proposed for rejecting the refund claim was that

the same was time barred. The said authority however before

passing final order issued this show cause notice and permitted

the petitioner to file reply within 15 days. Accordingly, the

petitioner has also filed the reply raising a contention that his

refund claim is not subjected to the limitation period. Admittedly

the assistant commissioner has not yet passed final order on the

petitioner’s refund claim.

At this stage, we may note one development, namely, that

the Supreme Court in the Union of India and others Vs. VKC

Footsteps India Pvt. Ltd., 2021 SCC Online SC 706 has

upheld the vires of the statutory provisions under consideration.

(3 of 3)

[CW-2137/2021]

That being the situation, the petitioner’s challenge to the statutory

provisions must come to an end. However at this stage, learned

counsel for the petitioner argued that the COVID related

extensions would apply to time limit provisions contained in the

statutes for refund also. At the stage, there is neither pleading nor

corresponding prayer for declaration to this effect. We therefore

refuse to go into this question in the present petition.

In view of the facts and material on record, let the assistant

commissioner decide the petitioner’s refund claim bearing in mind

the reply of the petitioner, copy of which is produced as annexure

A/4. It would be open for the petitioner to raise additional grounds

in support of the refund claim by filing reply within one week from

today. If any such further reply is filed, the authority shall take

into consideration the same also while taking final decision