Bombay High Court
Indigo Denim Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur Thr. ... vs Commissioner Cgst, Nagpur And Others on 5 June, 2023
Author: A.S. Chandurkar
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
28-WP-3227-23.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3227 of 2023
Indigo Denim Pvt.Ltd. Through its Authorized Signatory Shri Rudresh Gedam
vs.
Commissioner, CGST, Nagpur-I and others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri N.A.Lalwani, Advocate for petitioner.
CORAM :- A.S.CHANDURKAR AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE :- 5th JUNE, 2023 The petitioner's application for refund of goods and service tax under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short, the Act of 2017) came to be rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on 23rd September, 2019 which intimation was given to the petitioner on 30th September, 2019. According to the petitioner, it attempted to re-submit its application for refund in the first week of January, 2020 and on 5th March, 2020 the Assistant Commissioner informed the petitioner that on rejection of the application for refund, a fresh application was not tenable. This intimation was given to the petitioner on 11th March, 2020.
On 16th March, 2020 the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 107 of the Act of 2017. The said appeal has not been entertained on the ground that it has been filed beyond the time permitted by Section 107(4) of the Act of 2017. In other words, since the appeal had been filed beyond the period of three months as well as the extended period of one month, it was not entertained on merits.
2. The learned counsel relies on the decision in M. P .Steel Corporation vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [(2015) 7 SCC 58] to urge that principles analogous to Section 14 of the Limitation Act, ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2023 16:22:54 ::: 28-WP-3227-23.odt 2 1963 would be attracted since the petitioner bonafide attempted to re- submit the refund application before the Assistant Commissioner.
3. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable in four weeks.
4. To be heard alongwith Writ Petition Nos.3262 of 2023, 3378 of 2023, 5362 of 2022.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.) Andurkar.
::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2023 16:22:54 :::