2022(01)LCX0030

Delhi High Court

NATIONAL INTERNET EXCHANGE OF INDIA

Versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

W.P.(C) 871/2022 decided on 14/01/2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P.(C) 871/2022

NATIONAL INTERNET EXCHANGE OF INDIA           ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Charanya Lakshmikumaran,
Mr. Karan Sachdev and Mr. Kunal
Kapoor, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                       ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Zahid Hanief, Advocate for
Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, Advocate
for respondents No.2 to 4.
Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate for
respondent No.5.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

O R D E R
14.01.2022

Matter has been heard by way of video conferencing.

CM Appl. 2492/2022 (for exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Accordingly, present application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 871/2022

Present writ petition has been filed challenging Rule 90(3) of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and paragraph 12 of the impugned Circular dated 18 W.P.(C) 871/2022 th November, 2019 being ultra-vires Section 54 of the CGST Act. Petitioner also challenges the order dated 13^th April, 2021 passed by respondent No. 2 in FORM GST RFD-06 and seeks a direction to consider the application for refund filed by the petitioner and expeditiously decide the same on merits.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the refund application filed by the petitioner has been rejected by respondent no.2 vide order dated 13^th April, 2021 solely on the ground that the refund application filed after removal of deficiencies was beyond the prescribed period of two years. He states that in the present case, the original refund application was filed well within the limitation period of two years prescribed under Section 54(1) of the CGST Act. He states that thereafter certain deficiencies were noted, which were subsequently rectified by the petitioner by re-filing the refund application.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that once the refund application, though defective, has been filed within the prescribed time period, it cannot be rejected as time barred if the rectified refund application is filed after the expiry of the said period. He states that Section 54(1) of the CGST Act prescribes a period of limitation for filing of the refund claim which must necessarily mean the first filing of the refund application.

Issue notice.

Mr.Sahid Hanief, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondents No.2 to 4. Mr. Satish Kumar, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No.5.

List on 17^th January, 2022 along with connected W.P.(C) 6556/2020.

MANMOHAN, J

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

JANUARY 14, 2022

Equivalent .