STAR PUBLISHERS DISTRIBUTORS v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CGST, RANGE 1 AND ANR.

📅 June 8, 2026 👤 Team Batuk Consultancy 📂 GST, GST Case Laws

High Court, Delhi

Vibhu Bakhru, Justice & Amit Mahajan, Justice

STAR PUBLISHERS DISTRIBUTORS

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CGST, RANGE 1 AND ANR.

W.P.(C) 12900/2023 dated 11.10.2023

Law : GST

Act Name : Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017

Relevant Section : Section 54

Decision : In favour of assessee

Refund of Input tax – Rejcted due to time limitation – Sec 54(1) – Petition filed against impinged order whereby petitioner’s appeal against the refund rejection order- Petitioner had filed an application seeking refund of ITC in requisite form (GST RFD -01 – He filed application for refund for the period 01.06.2018 to 31.03.2019 was rejected on the ground that the application was filed beyond the period as stipulated under Section 54(1) – Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal – The said appeal was disposed of by the impugned order – The Appellate Authority accepted the petitioner’s contention that the petitioner’s application was not barred by limitation in view of the Notification No. 13/2022 – Central Tax dated 05.07.2022, whereby the period with effect from 1st day of March, 2020 to the 28th day of February, 2022 was required to be excluded for the purpose of computing the period under Section 54(1) of the CGST Act – However, the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal on the ground that no documentary evidence was submitted by the petitioner regarding the mode in which the export has taken place and in absence of such details, the commencement date for calculating the limitation period could not be ascertained – It was submitted by assessee that a tabular statement was filed before authority clearly indicating date of invoices, date of shipping bills and date of receipt of remittances – petitioner also filed a copy of such e-mail – Held – Statement filed by petitioner clearly indicates date on shipping bills and invoices – Thus, there is no ambiguity for computing period of limitation in reference to relevant date – There is no specific denial of receipt of e-mail – Further, there was no controversy as to evidence produced by assessee in respect of exports before Adjudicating Authority – Accordingly, impugned order was set aside and petition is allowed

Represented by:

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Rajeev Ahuja, Adv.

STAR PUBLISHERS DISTRIBUTORS v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CGST, RANGE 1 AND ANR.

STAR PUBLISHERS DISTRIBUTORS v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CGST, RANGE 1 AND ANR.

🔒 Premium Content

Quick Link

Get In Touch