ORDER

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under:

“(A) To hold and declare that Rule 90(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (Annexure “P/22”) is ultra-vires Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 to the extent it requires filing of ‘fresh’ application in case of a deficiency.

(B) To hold and declare that Para 12 of the Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST dated 18.11.2019 (Annexure “P/23”) is ultra-vires Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

(C) To hold and declare that Para 3(ii) of the Circular No. 157/13/2021-GST dated 20.07.2021 (Annexure “P/24”) is ultra-vires the order issued under Article 142 of the Constitution by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (Annexure “P/25”).

(D) Pass any other orders or directions, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The petitioner had filed an application on 05.11.2020, seeking refund of GST under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”), for the period from May, 2018 to March, 2019.

3. A Deficiency Memo was issued by the concerned authority on 10.11.2020. Resultantly, the petitioner filed a fresh application on 27.01.2021. However, the same was also found to be deficient, and a Deficiency Memo dated 01.02.2021 was issued. Thereafter, the petitioner filed his application for refund for the third time on 22.02.2021, however, that too was found to be defective and a Deficiency Memo dated 05.03.2021 was issued.

4. Finally, the petitioner filed its application for the fourth time on 27.04.2021. However, that was not processed. The concerned authority issued a notice dated 28.05.2021, proposing to reject the petitioner’s claim for refund as being beyond the period as stipulated under Section 54(2) of the Act.

5. The petitioner replied to the Show Cause Notice on 29.06.2021. However, the concerned authority (Respondent No. 5) was not satisfied with the petitioner’s response and rejected the petitioner’s application for refund as being barred by limitation.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that after this petition was filed, the petitioner also availed of its remedy of challenging the order dated 28.07.2021, whereby it’s application for refund was rejected before the Commissioner of Tax (Appeals).

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that order dated 28.07.2021 has been since been set aside and the matter has been remanded to Respondent No. 5 to consider afresh. However, he is unable to recall the date of the said order.

8. Learned Counsel for the respondent fairly concedes that the order dated 28.07.2021, rejecting the petitioner’s application for refund on the ground of limitation is unsustainable. He submits that in view of the notification dated 05.07.2022, issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, the period commencing from 01.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 is required to be excluded for computing the period of limitation for filing an application under Section 54 of the Act.

9. The petitioner has also challenged Rule 90 of the Rules being ultra vires Section 54 of the Act, as well as the circular dated 18.11.2019 (Circular No. 125/44/2019- GST).

10. Prayers (A) and (B) in the present petition are premised on the basis that the petitioner’s application was, otherwise, beyond the stipulated period of two years. In view of the submission made by learned Counsel for the respondent, the petitioner’s grievance against the Rule 90 and circular dated 18.11.2019 does not survive, therefore, we do not consider it apposite to examine the same in this petition.

11. Since the petitioner’s grievance in regard to the order dated 28.07.2021 stands addressed, no further orders are required to be passed in this petition. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.