2026-VIL-268-GSTAT-DEL
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-268-GSTAT-DEL

SGST Tribunal

GST - Maintainability of Revenue appeal - Revenue challenge to computation of extended due date under Notification No. 13/2022-Central Tax as travelling beyond the SCN and the Order-in-Original - Department appeal against an Order-in-Appeal that annulled an Order-in-Original rejecting a refund claim of excess tax paid on an advance solely on limitation - SCN and Order-in-Original had both proceeded on the ground that the claim was time-barred under Section 54 - Respondent contended that the Department raised for the first time before the Tribunal a case on the computation of the extended due date, which was never put to it at the show cause or adjudication stage - Whether the challenge to the computation of the extended due date renders the appeal and the review order not maintainable - HELD - A show cause notice is the foundation of the Department's case. The principle restrains the introduction of a new charge, classification or basis of demand never put to the assessee. It does not preclude the Department from correcting in appeal the arithmetic underlying a ground of rejection that was in issue throughout - Limitation under Section 54 was the ground of rejection in the SCN and the Order-in-Original, and the computation under the Notification was placed on record by the Respondent itself in its reply to the SCN - Rule 112 and Rule 45 restrict production of additional evidence and not legal argument on facts already on record and undisputed between the parties - The maintainability objection is rejected - Validity of annulment of Order-in-Original by the FAA - Order-in-Appeal annulling the Order-in-Original solely for violation of natural justice without recording any finding on limitation - Adjudicating authority had disposed of the reply to the SCN in a single sentence as not admissible and extracted the Notification on limitation without applying it, and the appellate authority annulled the order for non-consideration of the reply without deciding the limitation question or giving reasons - Whether the Order-in-Appeal is sustainable in annulling the Order-in-Original solely on natural justice without recording any finding on limitation - HELD - A quasi-judicial authority is required to pass a reasoned and speaking order dealing with the submissions made, and recording of reasons is itself a requirement of natural justice. The Order-in-Original was vitiated by non-consideration of the reply, to which extent the appellate authority was right. The Order-in-Appeal, however, did not record whether the Notification applied, did not compute the period of limitation, did not decide the relevant date for the original and re-filed applications and recorded no conclusion on whether the claim was within time -Where limitation depends on undisputed dates and a notification, the appellate authority was bound to decide it under Section 107(11) and (12), and the absence of the Department at the hearings did not relieve it of that duty - An annulment made so that the original authority looks at the matter again is a remand in substance, which Section 107(11) forbids - The Order-in-Appeal is not a speaking order and does not conform to Section 107(11) and (12), the annulment was justified in principle but the manner of disposal required improvement - Limitation for refund under Section 54(1) read with Notification No. 13/2022-Central Tax and effect of deficiency memos - Refund of excess tax paid on advance - Relevant date being the date of payment of tax, which fell within the period from 01.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 excluded by the Notification - Respondent first computed the extension by counting days from the date of receipt of the advance, then claimed before the Tribunal that the full two-year period commenced afresh on 01.03.2022, while the Department contended that only the days from the relevant date to the end of the excluded window stood added, making the original application one day late - Whether the original application was within time on a correct computation, and what effect the deficiency memos have on limitation - HELD - Estoppel does not operate against a statute or the Tribunal, and the shifting stand of the Respondent neither advances nor defeats its case. The correct computation being a pure question of law on admitted facts - Where limitation would have expired within the window, the Supreme Court gave 90 days from 01.03.2022, but that direction does not apply where the normal two-year period did not expire within the window. Since the relevant date fell within the excluded window and no part of the two years had run, the entire period stood excluded and the two years were to be reckoned afresh from 01.03.2022 - Applying Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the last date for filing was 29.02.2024, which was corroborated by the later computation of the adjudicating authority itself - The doctrine of relation-back, under which a rectified application after a deficiency memo is a continuation of the original, operates only where the original application was itself within time, and since the original application was filed on the last day, the re-filed applications relate back to it and the deficiency memos have no independent bearing on limitation - Original refund application held filed within the period prescribed under Section 54(1) as extended, and the question of limitation for the later applications does not survive - Characterisation of GST paid on advance as deposit under mistake of law - Respondent contended that the unadjusted portion of the advance, against which no supply materialised, was a deposit paid under a mistake of law and not tax, so that the limitation in Section 54 did not apply - Whether such amount can be treated as a deposit falling outside the limitation under Section 54(1) - HELD - GST on the advance was discharged through the return as tax properly leviable on receipt of the advance, and it became refundable only on a subsequent event, namely non-materialisation of supply against a part of the advance. Section 54(1) covers any tax paid and any other amount paid, and is the exclusive gateway for refund within the same two-year period, so re-characterisation of the claim as a deposit would render the words any other amount otiose - The amount does not fall outside Section 54 merely because it is described as a deposit, and this finding does not affect the outcome since the claim was within the statutory period - Nature of the two-year period under Section 54(1) - Respondent contended that the two-year period is procedural and capable of relaxation - Whether the two-year period is a procedural requirement capable of relaxation or a substantive condition for refund - HELD - The two-year period is not a rule of practice governing the manner of exercising an available right but a substantive statutory condition of eligibility for refund. The Circular speaks only to minor procedural lapses or non-substantive errors and does not extend to substantive compliance such as limitation - The submission does not assist the Respondent on limitation, and in view of the findings on the other issues the appeal of the Department is dismissed, the annulment is upheld for the reasons recorded by the Tribunal, and the refund application is held filed within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 54(1) as extended - The appeal filed by the appellant/ department is dismissed.
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Dr. G. Gokul Kishore

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

57th GST Council Decisions...
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Security-Code
New Code?

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Security-Code
New Code?

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?