Order date – 12 April 2023

Parties – Trafigura Global Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs and Another (WRIT PETITION NO. 3711 OF 2022)

Facts –

• The Petitioner, TRAFIGURA GLOBAL SERVICES PVT. LTD., has provided export of services outside India under LUT without payment of IGST. The petitioner has made the refund application on 5 March 2019.
• The Petitioner received a notice under Form GST-RFD-08 proposing to reject the Refund Application on the ground that it was barred by limitation of time.
• The Petitioner replied and informed that Petitioner had submitted the application on common portal, however, the documents were submitted online and thereafter the Petitioner also filed the application manually. The Commissioner rejected the application for refund on the ground that statutory limit of sixty days would be in the context of physical submission of the application and relied upon Circular No. 17/17/2017 dated 15 November 2017.
• The Commissioner has rejected the application on the grounds of time barred application.
• Aggrieved by the rejection order, present petition is filed.

Issue –

• In case of refund application under IGST Act, which date should be consider whether the date of online application or the date of physical submission ?

Order –

• The Court merited the contention of the counsel of the petitioner and considered the judgment passed by the Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s. Chromotolab and Biotech Solutions vs. Union of India wherein it was held that the date on which the online application is filed should be taken into consideration and not the date of physical application.
• Further, the Court observed that Revenue has rejected the Refund Application on the ground that the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Suo Moto Writ Petition for Extension of Limitation is not applicable and this view has been held to be incorrect by the decision of this Court in the case of Saiher Supply Chain Consultant Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, and therefore, at least part of the refund should have been granted.
• Hence, the Court has quashed and set aside the impugned order directing to give the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and pass an appropriate order as per law, taking into consideration the observations made by the court.
• The writ petition is disposed of in the favour of assessee.