Allowed

Naagu International v. Proper officer

Madras HC11 Apr 2023WP/14939/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment set aside orders rejecting GST refund applications filed by two petitioners based on limitation grounds. The court applied a Notification by the CBIC that excluded specific dates for limitation computation and directed the authorities to restore the applications for reconsideration within six weeks to one petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Orders rejecting refund applications set aside. Refund paid within six weeks for one petitioner; applications restored for the other.

Naagu International Vs Proper officer — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.Nos.14939 of 2022 etc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 11.04.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶6

W.P.Nos.14939, 14943, 14945, 14949, 2833, 3515 & 3519 of 2022 and

¶7

W.M.P.Nos. 14165, 14167, 14169, 14170, 14171, 14172, 14175, 14176, 2973 & 3348 of 2022

¶8

W.P.No.14939 of 2022

¶9

Tvl.Naagu International Rep. by its Partner Mr.T.Meiyappan, No.108, Dr.Lakshmanaswamy Salai, K.K.Nagar, Chennai - 600 078. .. Petitioner

¶10

¶11

Proper Officer, K.K.Nagar (Circle), GST & Central Excise, No.1, PAPJM Annex Building, 5th Floor, Greams Road, Chennai - 600 006. .. Respondent

¶12

Prayer in W.P.No.14939 of 2022: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records leading to the issuance of the Deficiency Memo bearing Reference No. ZB3302221988005 dated 21.02.2022 issued by the respondents herein, and quash the same, and direct the respondent herein to consider the refund application filed by the petitioner herein for the period July, 2017 to March, 2018 and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law.

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

1/6

¶15

W.P.Nos.14939 of 2022 etc

¶16

For Petitioner	:	Mr.Narayanan for Mr.Adithya Reddy (in W.P.Nos. 14939, 14943, 14945, 14949, 2833 of 2022)
		Mr.G.Shanmugam (in W.P.Nos.3515 & 3519 of 2022)
For Respondents	:	Mr.C.Harsha Raj Additional Government Pleader (in W.P.Nos. 14939, 14943, 14945, 14949 of 2022)
		Ms.Hema Muralikrishnan Senior Standing Counsel (in W.P.No.2833 of 2022)
		Ms.Anu Ganesan, Junior Panel Counsel (in W.P.Nos. 3515 & 3519 of 2022)

¶17

COMMON ORDER

¶18

Mr.Narayanan and Mr.Shanmugam, learned counsel for

¶19

the petitioner, Ms.Hema Muralikrishnan, learned Senior Standing Counsel, Ms.Anu Ganesan, learned Junior Panel Counsel and Mr.Harsha Raj, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents would make common submissions in regard to these matters.

¶20

The challenge is to orders rejecting refund under the applicable provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act,

¶21

2/6

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

W.P.Nos.14939 of 2022 etc

¶24

2017 and the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and appellate orders confirming such rejection.

¶25

In the writ petitions filed by Mr.Narayanan apart from rejecting the request on the ground of limitation, the authority also mentions the non-availability of certain statutory / other documents in support of the claim for refund. In the writ petitions filed by Mr.Shanmugam, the rejection is solely on the basis of limitation.

¶26

The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs has, vide Notification No.13/2022 - Central Tax dated 05.07.2022, stated that the time between 01.03.2020 - 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded in construing the limitation for issuance of order under Section 73(9) for computation of limitation for seeking refund under Sections 54 or 55 of the enactments.

¶27

In fact this Notification issued by the Board applies to Central GST authorities and GST authorities in the Union Territories. However, Mr.C.Harsha Raj, learned Additional Government Pleader, who appears for the State has written instructions dated 05.04.2023, a copy of which is placed on file, to state that the benefit under Notification No. 13/2022 will be extended to assesses

¶28

3/6

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

W.P.Nos.14939 of 2022 etc

¶31

in the State of Tamil Nadu as well. This is recorded.

¶32

Thus, and in light of the aforesaid discussion, orders in W.P.Nos.3515 & 3519 of 2022 filed by Mr.Shanmugam are set aside. Refund shall be paid over within six weeks from date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶33

Orders challenged in W.P.Nos. 14939, 14943, 14945, 14949, 2833 of 2022 filed by Mr.Narayanan are also set aside and the refund applications stand restored to the file of the assessing authority. Let the petitioner appear before the authority on Thursday, 20.04.2023 at 10.30. a.m. and satisfy the authority on all aspects of its claim barring those aspects covered by Notification No.13/2022.

¶34

Writ petitions stand disposed in terms of the above order. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶35

11.04.2023

¶36

Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes ssm

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

4/6

¶39

W.P.Nos.14939 of 2022 etc

¶40

To:

¶41

The Proper Officer, K.K.Nagar (Circle), GST & Central Excise, No.1, PAPJM Annex Building, 5th Floor, Greams Road, Chennai - 600 006.

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

5/6

¶44

W.P.Nos.14939 of 2022 etc

¶45

DR. ANITA SUMANTH,J.

¶46

ssm

¶47

W.P.Nos.14939, 14943, 14945, 14949, 2833, 3515 & 3519 of 2022

¶48

11.04.2023

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

6/6

Naagu International v. Proper officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naagu International v. Proper officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Row and Reddy Advocates, Vs the Life Insurance Corporation

Nandanam college of Engineering and Technology, Vs The Regional Transport officer

R.Sivakumar Vs Thiru. Kumar Jayant,I.a.S

M/S.Orchid Designs Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

D.Ranganathan and Co. Vs The Assistant Commissioner (Ral) (Fac)

Ram Prasath Muthunarayanan Reddy Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income tax