Heard Mr. K. A. S. V. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Y. N. Vivekananda, learned Government Pleader, Commercial Tax, for the respondents no.1 and 2; Mr. Suresh Kumar Routhu, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent no.4 and Mr. N. Harinath, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondent no.3.

2. The petitioner has moved the Court, for the following relief:

“….to issue any order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the Proceedings of the 1st respondent in form GST RFD-06 dated 22.10.2021 (Annexure P-1) in rejection of Refund claim for the Tax period April-2018 February-2019 filed on 12.04.2021(Annexure P-2) relying on the “relevant date” prescribed at explanation (2)(e) of Sec 54 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017, after issuance of the Show cause Notice in Form RFD08 dated 21.09.2021 (Annexure P-3) without consideration of the reply submitted in Form RFD-09 dated 04.10.2021 (Annexure P-4) is against to the decision of the Apex court in M.A.No.21 of 2022 in No.665 of 2021 in SMW(C) No.3 of 2020 in RE COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION dated 10.01.2022 and also against to the Notifications issued by the Ministry of Finance Government of India and Circular instructions of the Central Board for Indirect Taxes and Customs, at para 4(b) of its circular No 157/13/2021-GST Dt 20.07.2021, and also without opportunity of personal hearing as arbitrary, without jurisdiction, against to the principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Hence the writ petition may be allowed along with interest payable U/s 56 of the CG ST Act 2017 and to pass…”

3. The short point involved in the writ petition is whether rejection of the claim of the petitioner for refund for the period April, 2018 to February, 2019 on the ground that the same was filed beyond the statutory period and not extended or covered as per the Government notifications, is proper.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the time for filing application for refund in the present case would end from 31.03.2000 to 31.01.2021, but due to the pandemic situation, the same could not be filed in time. However, it was submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 in SMW(C) No.3 of 2020 with reference to cognizance for extension of limitation had taken on suo motu cognizance and the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application of proceedings, was extended from time to time and by order dated 23.09.2021, the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph no.8 directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall stand excluded and the balance period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2021, if any, shall become available w.e.f. 03.10.2021. It was submitted that admittedly, in the present case, the application for refund has been filed on 12.04.2021.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2 submitted that the order dated 22.10.2021 takes note of the Government Notification extending the dates for completion of the action and in the present case the same stood extended only till 31.03.2021, whereas, the petitioner has filed his claim only on 12.04.2021, and further, the Officer concerned has considered the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 29.03.2021 and then passed the order, relying upon Notification of the Central Government No.2/21 dated 14.12.2020 of the Central Government, by which time was extended to 31.03.2021 for the activities falling under the dates from 20.03.2020 to 30.03.2021. Thus, it was contended that the petitioner is not entitled to refund.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that the order impugned needs interference. The rejection of the claim has been solely on the ground that as per the Notification of the Central Government No.91/20 dated 14.12.2020, the time was extended only till 31.03.2021 for the activities which fell within the dates 20.03.2020 to 30.03.2021. The Court would note that such Notification is dated 14.12.2020 that is much prior to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 29.03.2021. Moreover, it need not be overemphasized that the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court would finally hold the field and in the present case, when the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the order referred to above has clearly indicated that any computing of period of limitation for any such appeal, application of proceeding the period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall stand excluded and in the present case admittedly the application for refund having been filed on 12.05.2021, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of such order.

7. Accordingly, the order impugned is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent no.1 to pass fresh orders on the claim of the petitioner in terms of his application dated 12.04.2021. The same shall be done expeditiously and preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the respondent no.1. There shall be no order as to costs.

8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, also stand disposed of.