Judicial Corner (18.11.2023)


  • Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a rectified refund application under Rule 90(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 is not time-barred. The petitioner paid excess amount of SGST under reverse charge mechanism and thus the petitioner filed refund application for which deficiency memo was issued and thereafter Petitioner filed a fresh application which was considered to be time barred for rejection of refund but the Hon’ble High Court placed its reliance on the Delhi High Court order in the case of BSNL v. Union of India [W.P. (C) No. 3550/2023], where it was held that Rule 90(3) of the CGST Rules cannot be applied in a manner that it renders refund application filed by taxpayer as non est. The High Court held that the second application filed by the petitioner, after removing the deficiency, could not have been rejected on the ground that it was time barred.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *