Heard Sri P. Karthik Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri Suresh Kumar Routhu, learned standing counsel for CBIC appearing for respondent No.3 and Sri N.Harinath, learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for respondent No.4.

2. Assailing the order dated 03.09.2021 passed by respondent No.1, rejecting the application of the petitioner for refund as barred by limitation, the present Writ Petition is filed.

3. The averments in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition show that the petitioner herein is entitled for refund of the tax paid in terms of Section 54 of the Central Goods & Services Act, 2017 (for short ‘CGST Act’) and Andhra Pradesh State Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘APSGST Act’) read with Rule 89 of the Goods & Service Tax (GST) Rules. The petitioner initially filed separate refund applications for the month of November, 2018 on 12.09.2020 and for the months of December, 2018 and January, 2019 on 17.09.2020 respectively. These applications were said to have been filed within the time prescribed under Section 54 of the CGST and APSGST Acts. On 22.09.2020, the 1st respondent issued a deficiency memo in Form GST RFD 03, for each of the said three months alleging that supporting documents were not filed to substantiate the refund. Accordingly, the petitioner was asked to file a consolidated refund application for the period November, 2018 to March, 2019, for a sum of Rs.75,21,426/- which was filed on 09.03.2021. In response to the said claim, a deficiency memo in Form GST RFD-03 was issued by respondent No.1 on 19.03.2021, stating that supporting documents are not attached. In reply to the said memo, the petitioner has resubmitted the application enclosing all the required documents on 04.06.2021 claiming refund of Rs.75,16,263/-. However, on 17.06.2021, Form GST RFD-08 was issued rejecting the application of the petitioner for refund on the ground of limitation.

4. It would be appropriate to extract the findings recorded in the Refund Rejection Order dated 03.08.2021, which are as under:

“I have carefully gone through the entire records, replies of the applicant, submissions and other records submitted during PH dated.19-07-2021.

I have found the following discrepancies in their reply filed and during the discussions held at the time of personal hearing:

1. The taxable person have consolidated all the 4 ARNs and as per notification.91/2020 dt:14-12-2020 due date for filing refund application was 31-03-2021 and are within the due date.

Explanation:

As per para 12 of the circular instructions in circular No.125/44/2019-GST dt:18-11-2019:

“It is also clarified that since a refund application filed after correction deficiency is treated as a fresh refund application, such a rectified refund application, submitted after correction of deficiencies, shall also have to be submitted within 2 years of the relevant date, again for the same relevant period and this application would have a new distinct ARN, as defined in the explanation after sub-section (14) of section 54 of the CGST ACT’’

2. The taxable person have mentioned due date for each month wise, but as per section 54 (14)(2)(a) of APGST Act 2017 the relevant date for filing refund claim is stated as above.

3. The taxable person have submitted the verdict of Honble supreme court of India in SMW (Civil) No.03/2020 dt:27-04-2021 and requested to approve of refund of Rs.75,16,263/- in terms of Hon’ble Supreme Court verdict and with reference to notification.14/2021 and 15/2021”

Explanation: As per para 4 & 5 of the circular instructions in circular no.157/13/2021-GST, dt:20-07-2021.

“The tax authorities can continue to hear and dispose off proceedings where they are performing the functions as quasi judicial authority. This may interalia includes disposal of application for refund, application for revocation of cancellation of registration, adjudication proceedings demand notices etc.”

In other words, the extension of timelines granted by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is applicable in respect of any appeal which is required to be filed in various courts/Quasi-judicial Authorities/Tribunals etc. But not applicable to any proceedings under GST laws.

Hence, basing on the above grounds the refund claim of the taxable person is rejected.

5. A reading of the orders show that extension of time granted by Hon’ble Supreme Court was only in respect to appeals, but the same is not applicable to any proceedings under GST laws.

6. Recently, the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs issued Notification No.13/2022-Central Tax dated 05.07.2022 which clearly postulates that the period from 1^st March, 2020 to 28th February, 2022, computation shall stand excluded while computing the period of limitation for filing refund application under Section 54 or Section 55 of the said Act.

7. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the application for refund was made beyond the period of limitation. Hence, the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remanded back to respondent No.1, for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and remanded. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.