Date of Order: 21-10-2022

Facts:

• The Petitioner, M/s Chromotolab And Biotech Solutions, supplied finished goods to pharmaceutical companies located in Special Economic Zone (SEZ) issuing tax invoices.
• For the supplies of finished goods during the period from August 2017 to October 2017, raising invoices, the petitioners claimed refund claim under Section 54 of the CGST Act.
• Refund application was filed on 28.12.2018 on common portal under Rule 89(1) of the CGST Rules for amount of Rs. 3,48,497/- in FORM GST RFD-01 during the period from August 2017 to October 2017.
• The refund claim of the petitioner came to be rejected on the ground that it was barred by limitation in terms of Explanation (2) (c) (1) of Section 54 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.
• The petitioner has prayed for direction against the respondents to re-credit amount of Rs.3,37,076/- in electronic credit ledger of the petitioner with interest from the date of order dated 19.11.2019 till its realisation.
• Department contended that the petitioner generated ARN number for the said refund claim on 20.12.2018 by filing application in FORM RFD-01A and relevant documents as required by the said circular. The printout of the application along with relevant documents was submitted by the petitioner to the office of respondents on 17.10.2019.

Issue:

• Whether the period of two years for filing refund claim under Section 54 of the CGST Act would be applicable upto date of filing an application on common portal or date of submitting printout of the of application for refund uploaded on common portal.

Order:

• The Hon’ble Court observed that Circular dated 15.11.2017 provided for procedure of filing application and filing of physical application with documents cannot have an overriding operation to the detriment of the assessee, who filed the refund application in the common portal of the respondents, which was acknowledged and ARN was also generated. The date of application filed on the portal has to be treated as one to reckon whether it was filed within two years as contemplated under Section 54 of the CGST Act.
• Further, in Commissioner of Central Exercise, Bolpur Vs. Ratan Melting & Wire Industries [2008(12) STR 416 the hon’ble Supreme Court held that the circular contrary to the statutory provisions cannot operate. Further, the hon’ble supreme court in J.K. Lakshmi Cement Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Pali [2018(14) GSTL 497 (SC) also held that the circular cannot alter the statutory provisions to the detriment to the assessee.
• It was held that the date of filing of the application by the petitioner on common portal would be liable to be treated as date of filing claim for refund to the satisfaction of requirement of Section 54 of the CGST ACT and Rule 89 of the CGST Rules.
• The respondents were directed to re-credit the amount of Rs.3,37,076/- in the electronic credit ledger of the petitioner with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of order of rejection of the claim, i.e., 19.11.2019 till realization.