Priceline.Com Technology India LLP VS Union Of India

A rule was established and made returnable forthwith, with the respondents waiving service. After hearing from the learned counsel for both parties, it was revealed that the petitioner is aggrieved by two specific orders. The first order is dated January 24, 2022, and the second is dated February 22, 2022. Both orders were issued by Respondent No.2, the Assistant Commissioner of CGST & CX, who partly allowed the petitioner’s claim for a refund.

The summary pertains to two distinct orders concerning different periods issued by a judicial or administrative body. The first order, dated 24 January 2022, addresses the period spanning from April 2018 to March 2019. The second order, dated 22 February 2022, pertains to two subsequent periods: from April 2019 to December 2019, and from January 2020 to March 2020.

Regarding the specific refund claim for the period between January 2020 and March 2020, it has been confirmed that the claim was granted to the Petitioner. Additionally, the Petitioner has expressed no dissatisfaction or grievance concerning this refund decision.

In essence, these orders outline decisions made concerning tax refunds or other financial matters, delineated by distinct time frames, with acknowledgment of the Petitioner’s satisfaction regarding the refund for the January 2020 to March 2020 period.

The case involves two separate orders concerning different periods under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The first order, dated 24th January 2022, pertains to the period from April 2018 to March 2019. The second order, dated 22nd February 2022, concerns two periods: April 2019 to December 2019 and January 2020 to March 2020.

Regarding the period from January 2020 to March 2020, the petitioner’s refund claim has already been granted, and there are no issues raised about this.

However, the challenge in the petition is directed towards the remaining periods: April 2018 to March 2019 and April 2019 to December 2019. The respondents have rejected refund claims for these periods, citing that they are time-barred.

The relevant legal provision in question is Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which governs the refund of tax. According to Section 54(1), an application for refund must be made within two years from the relevant date. The term “refund” is defined in Explanation (1) to Section 54(14).

Thus, the dispute revolves around whether the refund claims for the periods mentioned were made within the statutory time limit as stipulated under Section 54(1) of the CGST Act. The petitioner seeks to challenge the rejection of these claims based on the contention that they were not time-barred and should be reconsidered.

In summary, the case concerns the timing of refund applications under GST law for specific periods, with the petitioner contesting the rejection of claims on grounds of being time-barred, invoking relevant provisions of the CGST Act to support their argument.

In this legal matter, two distinct refund orders issued by the authorities are under scrutiny, each pertaining to different periods. The first order, dated 24 January 2022, addresses the period from April 2018 to March 2019. The second order, dated 22 February 2022, covers two separate periods: April 2019 to December 2019 and January 2020 to March 2020.

Regarding the period from January 2020 to March 2020, the petitioner has received and accepted the refund granted, indicating no dispute on this matter. However, the current challenge focuses on the remaining periods: April 2018 to March 2019 and April 2019 to December 2019.

The core issue revolves around the rejection of refund claims for these two periods by the respondents, citing that they are time-barred. This contention is based on Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which governs the refund of taxes. According to Section 54(1), any application for refund must be made within two years from the relevant date. The term “refund” under this section encompasses various scenarios, including tax paid on zero-rated supplies, deemed exports, and unutilised input tax credit.

The petitioner’s petition challenges the rejection of refund claims for the aforementioned periods, arguing against the time-barred status imposed by the respondents. The legal dispute hinges on the interpretation and application of Section 54’s timeframe provisions to the specific circumstances of the petitioner’s refund claims.

In summary, the case involves a legal challenge against the rejection of refund claims for GST paid during the periods from April 2018 to March 2019 and April 2019 to December 2019, focusing on the statutory time limits prescribed under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: