learned Counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance on the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court in M/s. Orient Traders v. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Another [2023 (1) TMI 838 – Karnataka HC], would submit that for bonafide mistake the dealer/assessee should not be punished and the ITC claimed wrongly availed as IGST instead of CGST should be allowed. 3. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. Section 54 read with Section 49 prescribes for refund of excess tax etc., paid by the registered dealer by moving an application within the period of two years from the last date of filing the returns for the relevant year. In the present case, the financial year is of 201718 for which the due date for filing the application for correcting the mistake or claiming the refund of the IGST was 23.04.2019. Admittedly, the petitioner did not move any application within the time prescribed and even the extended time. This Court, in exercise of its limited jurisdiction cannot amend the statute, prescribes different time limit for moving such an application and, therefore, I do not find much substance in this writ petition.
