considering period of limitation
Case Title | Vyplavi Granites vs The Deputy Commissioner Centra Tax |
Court | Andhra Pradesh High Court |
Honorable Judges | Justice A.V.Sesha Sai & Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari |
Citation | 2022 (4) GSTPanacea 339 HC Andhra Pradesh W.P.No. 12197 of 2021 |
Judgement Date | 25-April-2022 |
Council for Petitioner | K.Adi Siva Prasad |
Council for Respondent | Y.N.Vivekananada |
Section | Section 54 of CGST Act |
In Favour of | In Favour of Assesses |
The Andhra Pradesh High Court bench of Justice A.V.Sesha Sai & Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari has held that the Hon’ble Apex Court that while computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 is liable to be excluded. Accordingly Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the order to the extent of rejecting the claim and the matter is remanded to the said extent for consideration and for passing appropriate orders
considering period of limitation
FACTS OF THE CASE
In the present Writ Petition, challenge is to the order dated 30.04.2021 passed by respondent No.1-The Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax, rejecting the refund claim of the petitioner for the tax period, commencing from April, 2018 to January, 2019, relying on “Relevant date” prescribed under explanation (2) of Section 54 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017
The petitioner herein claimed refund of Rs.46,72,862/- towards tax period commencing from April, 2018 to March, 2019 in Form RFD-01 dated 13.03.2021 under subsection (3) of Section 54 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017
Respondent No.1 herein acknowledged the same, vide Form RFD-02 dated 26.03.2021. Thereafter, respondent No.1herein issued a show cause notice in Form GST RFD-08 dated 26.03.2021
The subject matter of the present Writ Petition, held that the petitioner herein is entitled for the refund of Rs.6,07,516/- for the period from February, 2019 to March, 2019 as per Rule 89(5) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017, read with Section 54 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and rejected the claim of the petitioner for the period commencing from April, 2018 to January, 2019
Rejecting the petitioner’s claim for the period commencing from April, 2018 to January, 2019, is illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the provisions of Section 54 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and Rule 89(5) of the Rules framed thereunder
In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2020, if any, shall become available with effect from 15.03.2021.
considering period of limitation
COURT HELD
Considering the facts as recorded, held that the Hon’ble Apex Court that while computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 is liable to be excluded.
In view of the said order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and if the said period is excluded from computation of the period of limitation, the entire claim of the petitioner herein is liable to be accepted.
This Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 30.04.2021 passed by respondent No.1 to the extent of rejecting the claim for the period commencing from April, 2018 to January, 2019 and the matter is remanded to the said extent for consideration and for passing appropriate orders by taking into consideration the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the order dated 08.03.2021 passed in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020. There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Petition.
considering period of limitation
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
The period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23(4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisions (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribed period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.
It is further evident from a perusal of the impugned order that though respondent No.1 herein referred to the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, respondent No.1 herein did not make any endeavour to consider the directions contained therein.
Download Pdf:
For Reference visit: