SGST High Court Cases

GST – Section 54 of CGST Act of 2017 - Returned goods, Refund of GST paid in excess, Issue of deficiency memo, Limitation – The value of goods returned by customers exceeded the outward supply - Since there was excess deposit of tax by the petitioner, on the date of filing of the final return a refund of the tax paid-in-excess was claimed - Dept rejected the refund application on the ground of limitation under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Whether the refund application filed by the petitioner was within the limitation period under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 – HELD - the original refund application was within the two-year limitation period from the relevant date, i.e., the date of filing of the final GST return on 20.09.2018. The subsequent application was in continuation of the original application and could not be treated as a new application for the purpose of limitation - the period of limitation stops running once the refund application is filed, even if the proper officer requires further documents or clarification - Further, the character or nature of the second application can in no way be said to be different from that of the original application, rather the same was part of the proceedings in continuation to the first application. Therefore, the claim of petitioner concern can in no way be said to be barred by limitation - the deficiency memo rejecting the refund application is quashed and respondents are directed to process and release the GST refund along with interest at the rate from the due date till the date of realization. The respondents were also directed to pay the costs of Rs.30,000 to the petitioner – the writ petition is allowed - Whether the opportunity of hearing was required to be provided to the petitioner before rejecting the refund application – HELD - as per Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 no refund application shall be rejected without providing the applicant an opportunity of being heard. The respondents had admitted that no personal hearing was provided to the petitioner, which was in violation of the rules. This is sufficient ground to quash the impugned deficiency memo.

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page