Order Date: 30 July 2025
Parties: Suraj Mangar v. Assistant Commissioner of West Bengal State Tax & Others

Facts -

• The appellant filed a refund claim on December 24, 2021, which was acknowledged late on January 10, 2022, beyond the 15-day limit under Rule 90(2). A show-cause notice was issued on February 8, 2022, fixing the reply date on February 23, 2022 also beyond the 60-day deadline under Section 54(7) of the GST Act.
• The refund was rejected based on alleged deficiencies, including the size of the premises and absence of e-way bills- grounds not stated in the SCN. 
• The lower court upheld the rejection, but the appellant contended that all statutory timelines were breached, and relevant export documents (shipping bills, EGM, LEO) were duly submitted.

Issue -

• Whether the breach of statutory timelines under Section 54(7) of the GST Act vitiates the refund rejection order?

Order -

• The division bench of the Hon’ble high court held that double standards were applied in the impugned judgment, by holding on the one hand that the Authority could not have extended the time for filing reply, since Rule 92 was mandatory, while failing to observe on the other hand that the overarching time-limit of 60 days stipulated in Section 54(7) of the Act itself was also mandatory by the same logic.
• If Rule 92 and Rule 90 are mandatory, it is the PO himself who violated the same by issuing the acknowledgment late and fixing even the date of filing reply one day after the expiry of 60 days from the application, leaving no time whatsoever for a further opportunity of hearing and a consideration of the reply in terms of Rule 92(3) of the rules.
• Thus, on a careful assessment of the impugned order, the Court arrived at the conclusion that despite the constraints of interference in an intra-court appeal, in the present case, there was a violation of law ex facie evident from the impugned judgment and, as such, they did not find other option but to set aside the same.