2026-VIL-312-GSTAT-DEL
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-312-GSTAT-DEL

SGST Tribunal

GST - Refund of excess payment of tax - Relevant date under clause (h) of the Explanation to Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Respondent filed a single refund application in May 2020 for excess payment of tax shown as the tax period March 2018, which in substance covered the entire financial year 2017-18 from July 2017 to March 2018. The appellate authority allowed the claim by holding that the relaxation notifications covered the filing date - Whether the relevant date for a single composite refund claim for the year is to be taken from the annual reconciliation of March 2018 or whether limitation must be examined separately for the excess paid with each monthly return - HELD - The Circular No. 26/26/2017-GST and Circular No. 7/7/2017-GST and the Press Release do not alter the Explanation to Section 54, the two-year period or the relevant date. The Circular on carry forward deals with adjustment and not with refund or limitation, and the later Circular permits refund only where adjustment in subsequent returns is not feasible. The Respondent did not identify any return in which the earlier differential was reported on a net basis. Section 59 casts a duty of self-assessment on the registered person, and the annual return only summarises the position for the year. Later amendments to Rule 61(5) and the discontinuance of the reconciliation return concern the mechanism of filing and do not postpone the relevant date. The label in the application cannot fix limitation for a claim covering nine separate payments, and the monthly return is the return as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court - The claim is not a single composite claim, the relevant date for excess paid with each monthly return is the date of filing of that return, and limitation is to be examined month-wise – Ordered accordingly - Limitation for months July 2017 to February 2018 and effect of Notification No. 35/2020 as amended by Notification No. 55/2020 - Whether claims for earlier months are barred under Section 54(1) and saved by the COVID relaxation Notification No. 35/2020-Central Tax as amended by Notification No. 55/2020-Central Tax - The last dates for the months July 2017 to February 2018 fell between August 2019 and March 2020, before the relaxation window opened on 20.03.2020, whereas the refund application was filed on 06.05.2020. The appellate authority held that the notifications squarely covered the claim as it was filed within the relaxation period - Whether the claims for these months are barred by limitation - HELD - The notification extends a time limit which falls during the period from 20.03.2020 to the specified end date, and what determines its application is the date on which the limit falls and not the date on which the application is filed - A limit which had already expired before 20.03.2020 is not one which falls during the window, and nothing in the notification revives a period that had lapsed before its commencement. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Merck Life case has also held the two-year period to be mandatory for the tax authority. The claims for July 2017 to February 2018 are therefore barred under Section 54(1) so far as these notifications are concerned - For March 2018 the last date fell within the window and the application was in time, as accepted in the order-in-original, but the Respondent's own figures disclose no excess payment for that month - The notifications afford no refund to the Respondent, and the reasoning of the appellate authority based on the date of filing was not sustainable - Refund for February 2018 under Notification No. 13/2022 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on extension of limitation - Benefit of Notification No. 13/2022-Central Tax dated 05.07.2022 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the suo motu proceedings on extension of limitation - Limitation for the excess paid with the return for February 2018 expired in March 2020 within the exclusion window, and the application was filed during the window itself - Whether the Respondent is entitled to refund for February 2018 although the claim was not specifically pressed - HELD - Where limitation expired within the period excluded from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, all persons have limitation of ninety days from 01.03.2022, and the application filed earlier is in time on any computation. For July 2017 to January 2018 the limit had expired before the exclusion window commenced, and these claims are not saved by the notification or the judgment. There can be no estoppel against a statute, a concession on a question of law binds neither the party nor the Tribunal, and limitation is a pure question of law on admitted facts which may be considered at any stage. The claim filed already included the excess for February 2018, no prejudice was caused to the Appellant, and denying a refund lawfully due merely because the claim was not framed month-wise would defeat the intent of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the notification - The Respondent is entitled to refund for February 2018, to be quantified after segregating it from the consolidated claim and granted in accordance with law, while claims for July 2017 to January 2018 remain barred - Plea of amount paid without authority of law under Article 265 of the Constitution - Refund - Alternative plea that excess payment is an amount paid without authority of law within Article 265 of the Constitution, so that the limitation under Section 54(1) does not apply - Whether the excess amount is an amount paid without authority of law so that the limitation under Section 54(1) does not bar its refund - HELD - In the decisions relied upon, the amount was either exempt, unconstitutionally levied, deposited outside the return under a mistaken belief, or paid twice as found by the authority itself. Here GST was chargeable on the services, the amounts were paid as tax through the monthly return, and no authority had found or conceded that any identified amount was paid twice or without authority of law. The record shows only a difference between tax declared in the two returns attributed to corrections and annual reconciliation, and the Respondent did not plead when and how any mistake of law was discovered - The Respondent, having elected to apply under Section 54 through Form GST RFD-01, must take the statutory period that goes with it, and the burden of bringing itself within an exception to limitation was not discharged. The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a refund application beyond the statutory period is untenable was applied - The alternative plea under Article 265 is not made out on the record, and the claim remains barred under Section 54(1) - Whether there was any excess payment of tax for March 2018 - Existence of excess payment for March 2018 and consistency of the Department's ground with the order-in-original - Respondent contended that the order-in-original itself recorded excess payment for March 2018 and that the Appellant-Department could not approbate and reprobate, and further that excess of earlier months was carried forward into March 2018 - The Appellant-Department contended that on the month-wise break-up of the Respondent there was a short payment for that month and the sanctionable refund was nil - Whether there was any excess payment of tax for March 2018 and whether the ground raised is contrary to the order-in-original - HELD - The order-in-original recorded the figure with a negative sign and concluded in the next sentence that the eligible refund was nil, and a negative figure of excess payment is a shortfall and not an excess. The Respondent's own statement likewise showed a negative figure for that month, and the figures differ but the sign and conclusion are the same, so the ground is consistent with the order-in-original and there is no approbation and reprobation. The plea of carry forward depends on the premise rejected earlier, as the relevant date of each
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

GST Adjudication & Appeals Reform
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?