This court proposes to send the matter back to the respondent for considering the refund application de novo and make an order in accordance with Rule 92 of CGST Rules and Section 54(8) of CGST Act.
Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 –– Refund– Limitation period ––The petitioner filed refund application dated 19.04.2021 under Section 54 of the Act. The refund applications were rejected vide order dated 26.07.2021 on the ground that refund applications should have been made within two years from the relevant date. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has the benefit of suo-motu order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 27.04.2021 made in Miscellaneous Application. Post aforementioned orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the CBIC issued a circular dated 20.07.2021 in Circular No.157/13/2021-GST, which stated that the tax authorities can continue to hear and dispose off proceedings where they are performing the functions as quasi-judicial authority. This may interalia include disposal of application for refund application, for revocation of cancellation of registration, adjudication proceedings of demand notices, etc. The counsel for writ petitioner submitted that the writ petitioner falls under Section 54(8)(b) the Act and therefore, he is entitled to refund. The counsel for the respondent submitted that CBIC circular referred and more particularly, Paragraph 4(b) is indisputable.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court set aside the impugned orders dated 26.07.2021 and order dated 28.07.2021 and remitted the matter back to the respondent for considering the refund application de novo and make an order inter alia in accordance with Rule 92 of said Rules and Section 54 (8) (b) Act.
This court proposes to send the matter back to the respondent for considering the refund application de novo and make an order in accordance with Rule 92 of CGST Rules and Section 54(8) of CGST Act.
Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 –– Refund– Limitation period ––The petitioner filed refund application dated 19.04.2021 under Section 54 of the Act. The refund applications were rejected vide order dated 26.07.2021 on the ground that refund applications should have been made within two years from the relevant date. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has the benefit of suo-motu order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 27.04.2021 made in Miscellaneous Application. Post aforementioned orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the CBIC issued a circular dated 20.07.2021 in Circular No.157/13/2021-GST, which stated that the tax authorities can continue to hear and dispose off proceedings where they are performing the functions as quasi-judicial authority. This may interalia include disposal of application for refund application, for revocation of cancellation of registration, adjudication proceedings of demand notices, etc. The counsel for writ petitioner submitted that the writ petitioner falls under Section 54(8)(b) the Act and therefore, he is entitled to refund. The counsel for the respondent submitted that CBIC circular referred and more particularly, Paragraph 4(b) is indisputable.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court set aside the impugned orders dated 26.07.2021 and order dated 28.07.2021 and remitted the matter back to the respondent for considering the refund application de novo and make an order inter alia in accordance with Rule 92 of said Rules and Section 54 (8) (b) Act.