Gauhati High Court
Gnrc Limited vs The Union Of India And 4 Ors on 4 April, 2022
Author: Kalyan Rai Surana
Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010045662022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1742/2022
GNRC LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
COMPANIES ACT. 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT GNRC
COMPLEX, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006 AND IN THE PRESENT
PROCEEDINGS REPRESENTED BY MR. MADHURJYA BORAH, ONE OF THE
DIRECTORS OF THE PETITIONER COMPANY.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NEW DELHI.
2:THE COMMISSIONER
CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX
GUWAHATI
CENTRAL GST HQRS
GUWAHATI
GST BHAWAN
KEDAR ROAD
MACKHOWA
GUWAHATI-781001.
3:THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE
GUWAHATI DIVISION-II
2ND FLOOR
GST BHAWAN
KEDAR ROAD
FANCY BAZAR
GUWAHATI-781001.
Page No.# 2/4
4:THE SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX
RANGE-II D
2ND FLOOR
GST BHAWAN
KEDAR ROAD
FANCY BAZAR
GUWAHATI-781001.
5:GST COUNCIL
5TH FLOOR
TOWER-II
JEEVAN BHARTI BUILDING
JANAPATH ROAD
CONNAUGHT PLACE
NEW DELHI-110001
Advocate for the Petitioner : DR. A SARAF
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, GST
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
ORDER
Date : 04-04-2022 Heard Dr. A. Saraf, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned standing counsel for the GST department appearing for all the respondents.
2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the case projected by the petitioner is that the petitioner, under a misconception had paid GST on the comprehensive supply of medicines, consumables, implants etc. and later on it came to their notice that such services were exempted from GST. The petitioner claimed refund of the GST Page No.# 3/4 paid. However, the claim for refund was rejected by order dated 31.12.2021 on the ground that the application was filed after expiry of two years.
3. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in cases of such nature, the period of limitation will be three years and not two years and it has further been submitted that as per case law on the point, the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will also be applicable.
4. Be that as it may, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that pursuant to an order dated 11.03.2022 passed by this Court, the petitioner had submitted an online representation on 22.03.2022 and the same has been brought on record by filing an additional affidavit in this matter on 24.03.2022.
5. It is submitted that this is a fit case where the competent authority of the respondents may be directed to dispose of the representation dated 22.03.2022 submitted by the petitioner. It is also prayed that the competent authority of the GST department may also be directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner for which the petitioner shall provide his e-mail address for transmission of notice while producing a certified copy of this order.
6. On a query of the Court, the learned standing counsel for the GST department submits that 4(four) weeks time would be sufficient to dispose of the representation.
Page No.# 4/4
7. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the competent authority of the respondents to dispose of the representation dated 22.03.2022 submitted by the petitioner by giving him an opportunity of hearing. It is clarified that no opinion has been expressed by the Court on merit of the present case.
8. It is needless to mention that if the petitioner is aggrieved by any order passed that may be passed, he would be entitled to avail such remedy as he may be so advised.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant