Order date – 6 April 2023

Parties – Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

Facts –

• The petitioner, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, seeks refund of GST amounting to ₹2,63,98,462/- which it claims was paid in excess for the month of December, 2017.
• The petitioner asserts that there was an error in reporting the sales for the said month and that it had raised an invoice for carrying out the work of the NFS Project.
• The petitioner filed an physical refund application (in Form GST RFD 01) on 17.01.2020 seeking refund of the excess payment of tax amounting to ₹2,63,98,462/-.
• The Adjudicating Officer issued a Deficiency Memo seeking certain documents, which were uploaded online by the petitioner. The petitioner had uploaded the documents online in the said format and therefore, the same was construed as an application for refund.
• However, by an order dated 29.04.2020, the petitioner's application was rejected as it was beyond the period of limitation.
• The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting its appeal against an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority.

Issue –

• Whether the Appellant application of refund of GST barred by limitation?

Order –

• The Court observed that the Appellate Authority had proceeded on the basis that the petitioner had filed the first online refund claim along with documents on 10.02.2020, ignoring the petitioner's application filed on 17.01.2020.
• Further, it observed that the Appellate Authority had rejected the petitioner's appeal based on the sole reason that an application could only be filed online. 
• Merely because certain clarifications or documents are sought by way of a Deficiency Memo, it does not render the application filed by a taxpayer as non est. If the application filed is not deficient in material particulars, it cannot be treated as non est. If it is accompanied by the documentary evidences” as mentioned in Rule 89(2) of the Rules, it cannot be ignored for the purposes of limitation. The limitation would necessarily stop on filing the said application.
• It is erroneous to assume that the application, which is accompanied by the documents as specified under Rule 89(2) of the Rules, is required to be treated as complete only after the taxpayer furnishes the clarification of further documents as may be required by the proper officer and that too from the date such clarification is issued.
• The court held that the impugned order was based on a palpably erroneous premise and allowed the petitioner's writ petition.

updates about central sales tax, list of excise and taxation in Gurgaon, DGFT / SEZ updates, news updates GST Weekly Updates, GST Updates with date, Recent updates in GST till date, latest GST news & updates, GST notification on tax and rate