![]()
Case Summary: DMI Alternatives Private Limited vs. Additional
Commissioner CGST Appeals 1 Delhi & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C)
5412/2024
Date of Order: April
16, 2024
Court Name: High
Court of Delhi, New Delhi
Summary of Case: The
petitioner, DMI Alternatives Private Limited, challenged the dismissal of their
appeal by the Additional Commissioner CGST Appeals solely on the grounds of
limitation. The petitioner argued that the limitation period was
misinterpreted, failing to consider a relevant circular extending the
limitation period for filing refund applications.
Facts of the Case:
·
Initial Filing: The petitioner erroneously
declared the taxable value for intra-State supply of services under IGST
instead of CGST and SGST in November 2017.
·
Correction and Double Deposit: Corrected
the mistake and deposited the correct amounts under CGST and SGST, leading to a
double payment.
·
Refund Application: Filed on May 11, 2020,
which was initially rejected on June 29, 2020.
·
Appeal: Dismissed on June 30, 2021.
·
Second Refund Application: Filed on July
14, 2022, which was also rejected.
·
Circular Reference: Circular dated
September 25, 2021, clarified the relevant date for filing refund applications.
Submissions by Petitioner:
·
Argued that the limitation period should
be extended based on the circular dated September 25, 2021.
·
Claimed that both refund applications were
filed within the extended period as clarified by the circular.
Respondent:
·
The respondents maintained the dismissal
of the appeal on the grounds of limitation.
Findings and Judgment:
·
The court noted the circular dated
September 25, 2021, which clarified that the relevant date for filing refund
applications should be the date when the tax was paid under the correct head.
·
The circular provided that in cases where
tax was paid under the correct head before the issuance of the circular, a
further period of two years from the date of the circular was available.
·
The court found that both refund
applications filed by the petitioner were within the extended period provided
by the circular.
·
The court set aside the impugned order and
restored the appeal to its original number on the record of the Appellate
Authority.
·
The Appellate Authority was directed to
consider and dispose of the appeal on merits in accordance with the law.
Conclusion: The
High Court of Delhi underscored the importance of adhering to circulars that
provide clarifications on procedural aspects like limitation periods for filing
refund applications. The case was remanded for a fresh decision, ensuring that
the extended limitation period as clarified by the circular was duly
considered.
Disclaimer: All the
Information is based on the notification, circular and order issued by the
Govt. authority and judgement delivered by the court or the
authority information is strictly for educational purposes and on the
basis of our best understanding of laws & not binding on anyone.
Click here
