VISHAL CHAUDHARY vs UNION BANK OF INDIA

Dated: 05.11.2026
GSTAT

State Bench Delhi
Court No. Court I
APL/31/DEL/2026
VISHAL CHAUDHARY .............Appellant
Versus
UNION BANK OF INDIA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 25 5
SUNITA CO OPERATIVE HOUSING LIMITED G D SOMANI
MARG 98 CUFFE PARADE MHMUC 400005 .............Respondent

Quorum
Hon’ble Sh. Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal, Vice President/Judicial Member
Hon’ble Sh. Rajiv Kapoor, Member (Technical)
Authorized Representative for
Authorized Representative for Appellant
Respondent
Sh. Rahul Kumar, Ld. DC.
Sh. Shrinath R., Ld. CA,
Sh. Shiva Kumar G, Ld. Counsel.
Form GST APL-04A
[See rules 113(1) & 115]
Summary of the order and demand after issue of order by the GST Appellate Tribunal
whether remand order : No
Order reference no. : ZN510071126000071H Date of order : 05/11/2026
1. GSTIN/Temporary ID/UIN - 07AAACU0564G2ZI
2. Appeal Case Reference no. - APL/31/DEL/2026 Date - 29/01/2026

3. Name of the appellant - VISHAL CHAUDHARY , [email protected] , 9882341646
Name of the respondent -
1. UNION BANK OF INDIA , [email protected] ,
8425870008
4.
5. Order appealed against - AD070321019460N
(5.1) Order Type - Refund Order
(5.2) Ref Number - ZD0707250267455 Date - 16/07/2025
Personal Hearing - 05/11/2026 04/11/2026 30/10/2026 09/10/2026 07/10/2026
25/09/2026 10/09/2026 31/08/2026 27/08/2026 06/08/2026 22/07/2026 07/07/2026
19/05/2026 12/05/2026 05/05/2026 29/04/2026 16/04/2026 08/04/2026
6.
7. Status of Order under Appeal - Reject - Order under Appeal is annulled
Order in brief - (i) The refund claim of Rs. 1,35,34,594/- is not a single composite claim
for limitation. The relevant date for the excess, if any, paid with each monthly GSTR-
3B is the date of filing of that GSTR-3B under clause (h) of the Explanation to Section
54 of the Act 2017, and limitation is to be examined month-wise. (ii) The claims for July
2017 to February 2018 became time-barred with regard to time limits under notification
35/2020 as amended by notification No. 55/2020-central Tax. The respondent has not
on this record established its alternative plea under Article 265 of the Constitution. (iii)
The claims for July 2017 to January 2018 had expired before the commencement of the
exclusion period (under notification No. 13/2022-central Tax dated 05.07.2022, and the
judgment dated 10.01.2022 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in In Re: Cognizance for
Extension of Limitation, Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020) and are not saved
thereby. They remain barred under Section 54(1) of the Act 2017. However, the
respondent is entitled to the refund for the month of February 2018 by virtue of
notification No. 13/2022-Central Tax which shall be quantified after segregating it from
the said consolidated claim and be granted to the respondent in accordance with law.
(iv) The claim for March 2018 is within time by virtue of Notification 35/2020 as
amended by notification No. 55/2020-central Tax, but on the respondent’s own month-
wise figures, there was no excess payment for that month and the refund sanctionable is
nil. (v) The OIA is set aside to the extent discussed herein above. No order as to costs.
8.
Summary of Order

9. If demand order then whether demand quantified: No
10. For Other orders and Demand orders which are not quantified:
Issues as
raised by
proper
officer
Order by
GST
Appellate
Tribunal
Issues as determined by Appellate/Revisional authority
1. The Appellate Authority set aside the Order-in-Original and
allowed the refund claim. 2. It was held that: o The refund claim
could not be treated as time-barred by applying the relaxation
provided under Notification No. 35/2020-GST dated
03.04.2020 and Notification No. 55/2020-GST dated
27.06.2020. o The excess tax paid during earlier months,
having been carried forward and reflected in March, 2018, was
eligible for refund. 3. Consequently, the appeal filed by the
respondent was allowed without restricting the refund to the
month of March, 2018.
Erroneous
refund


Place :DELHI
Date : 06.11.2026

FINAL ORDER

1. This appeal has been filed by the Assistant Commissioner, Connaught
Place Division, CGST Delhi South Commissionerate (hereinafter called,
"the Appellant "), in FORM GST APL-07 under sub-section (3) of Section
112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter called,
"the Act 2017") read with Rule 111 of the Central Goods and Services Tax
Rules, 2017 (hereinafter, "the Rules 2017"). It challenges Order-in-Appeal
No. 107/2021-22 dated 03.11.2021 (hereinafter called, "the OIA"), passed
by the Additional Commissioner, CGST Appeals-II, Delhi (hereinafter
called, "the appellate authority"), communicated on 10.11.2021.
2. M/s Union Bank of India (hereinafter called "the respondent "), GSTIN
07AAACU0564G2ZI, is engaged in providing banking and other financial
services.
3. On 06.05.2020 the respondent filed a refund application (ARN
AA070520003182Z) in FORM GST RFD-01 for Rs. 1,35,34,594/- (CGST
Rs. 67,67,297/- and SGST Rs. 67,67,297/-). As recorded in the Order-in-
Original (hereinafter called, "the OIO"), the claim was filed in the "any
other" category under Section 16(3)(a) of the Integrated Goods and
Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter called "the IGST Act "), read with
Section 54(1) and (3) of the Act 2017 along with rules made there under.
The claim was made for the tax period 01.03.2018 to 31.03.2018 on
account of "excess payment of tax". An acknowledgement was issued on
11.05.2020.
4. The sequence of proceedings, as it appears from the record, is:
(i) Show Cause Notice in FORM GST RFD-08 dated 11.05.2020
("hereinafter called the SCN");

(ii) the respondent's reply;
(iii) a corrigendum to the SCN dated 23.05.2020, as recorded in the OIO;
(iv) The OIO rejecting the entire claim;
(v) the OIA dated 03.11.2021, allowing the respondent's appeal;
(vi) the Review Order dated 07.06.2022; and
(vii) the present appeal, on 29.01.2026.

5. The SCN was issued under Rule 92(3) of the Rules 2017 by the Assistant
Commissioner, Connaught Place Division, CGST Delhi South.
(a) It refers to the refund application ARN AA070520003182Z dated
06.05.2020 "filed under section 54 of the Act 2017".
(b) It records that on scrutiny of FORM GST RFD-01, it is observed that
the respondent "filed refund claim amounting Rs. 1,35,34,594/- for the Tax
Period 01.03.2018 TO 31.03.2018 on account of 'Excess payment of Tax-
if any'".
(c) It reproduces Section 54(1) of the Act, "as amended", that a person
claiming refund "may make an application before the expiry of two years
from the relevant date in such form and manner as may be prescribed".
(d) It states that in the case of respondent, the relevant date of filing of
above refund claim was before or on 18.04.2020 as it had filed the GSTR
3B return for the month of March, 2018 on 19.04.2018."

(e) It concludes that the respondent had "not filed the above mention
refund claim within stipulated period of time as per section 54(1)" and
"cannot claim refund of tax for the period of March, 2018".
(f) It calls upon the respondent to show cause as to why its refund claim
of Rs. 1,35,34,594 should not be rejected, directing there in to file reply
within fifteen days from the date of service.
(g) It further records that in the wake of lockdown due to Covid-19, it may
not be possible to hold personal hearing, requests a detailed reply with
supporting documents, and states that the application "would be disposed
based on its reply of the SCN and that in default of reply, the case will be
decided ex parte on the basis of available records and on merits".
6. The SCN does not refer to any tax period earlier than March 2018; it does
not allege that there was no excess payment; it does not refer to Notification
No. 35/2020-Central Tax; and it does not refer to Circular No.
121/40/2019-GST.
7. The findings and reasoning of the OIO are reproduced below in the order
in which they appear.
8. First , the OIO records that the claim was for March 2018, and that the reply
to the SCN had been received. It then observes:
"Further, it was observed that party has filed refund claim
for the period July, 2017 to February, 2018 beyond the
statutory limitation period i.e. after lapse of time period of
filing refund claim. However, the refund claim for the period
March, 2018 has been filed within time period as per
Notification No. 35/2020-Central Tax dated 03.04.2020
which inter alia states that: 'where, any time limit for

completion or compliance of any action, by any authority or
by any person, has been specified in, or prescribed or notified
under the said Act, which falls during the period from the
20th day of March, 2020 to the 29th day of June, 2020, and
where completion or compliance of such action has not been
made within such time, then, the time limit for completion or
compliance of such action, shall be extended upto the 30th
day of June'."
9. Secondly , the OIO records the issue of a corrigendum to the SCN and
submission of reply:
"In view of the above, party was issued corrigendum to SCN
on 23.05.2020 through Division email id
[email protected] ... to show cause as to why refund
claim of the amount w.r.t. period July, 2017 to February,
2018 should not be rejected and party was also requested to
submit the month wise break up from July, 2017 to March,
2018 of excess payment of tax, paid through cash or ITC
under IGST, CGST, SGST and cess heads. Party was given 5
(five) days to furnish a reply from the date of service of the
notice i.e. till 28.05.2020, reply to which has not been
received till date. However, party vide their email dated
22.05.2020 has submitted the month wise break up from July,
2017 to March, 2018 of excess payment of tax."
10. Thirdly , the OIO records its finding on the month-wise break-up:
"On examining the month wise break up submitted by the
party, it is analyzed that party had done excess payment of

tax amounting to Rs. -242846 in CGST and Rs. -242846 in
SGST heads in the month of March, 2018. So, the eligible
refund to be sanctioned to party comes to NIL."
11. Fourthly , the OIO concludes:
"So, I hereby find that the refund amount of Rs. 13534594/-
is liable to be rejected. Further, as discussed above, the party
has failed to satisfy basic and necessary condition of
eligibility as envisaged under Circular no. 121/40/2019-GST
dated 11th October, 2019 and with this glaring discrepancy
on, it will be futile exercise to examine other aspects of
admissibility of the refund claim. Hence, I am not going into
the rest of the issues as this would not revive the refund
claim."
12. The respondent appealed to the appellate authority. Personal hearings were
granted on 16.02.2021 by the then appellate authority and on 23.08.2021
and 06.09.2021 by the successor authority; representatives of the
respondent appeared virtually and filed additional submissions by e-mail
on 07.09.2021. No one appeared for the appellant.
13. The submissions of the respondent before the appellate authority, as
recorded in the OIA, were that: the OIO was bad in law; the adjudicating
authority erred in not considering the excess GST of Rs. 1,35,34,594/-
carried over to March 2018 in terms of Circular No. 26/26/2017-GST dated
29.12.2017; it erred in rejecting the claim on the difference between tax
paid per GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 of March 2018; it violated natural justice
by not granting a personal hearing; it did not follow the COVID relaxations
under Notification No 35/2020 dated 03.04.2020 and Notification No.
55/2020 dated 27.06.2020, which extended due dates for all compliances

up to 31.08.2020; and the Bank should be allowed to rectify its GSTR-3B
and disclose the excess payment for adjustment in subsequent months, in
terms of Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Union of India [2020] 116 taxmann.com 416
(Delhi).
14. The appellate authority's discussion and findings, which contain the whole
of its reasoning, are reproduced:
"The main issue of this instant appeal is whether the refund
claim has been filed in time or not. Before proceeding further,
I refer to the relevant dates which are crucial in deciding the
matter. As regards provisions of Notification 35/2020 dated
3rd April, 2020 and Notification 55/2020 dated 27th June,
2020 which extended due date for all compliances under GST
Act up to 31st August 2020. The refund claim has been filed
after lapse of statutory time limit in terms of Section 54(1) of
CGST Act 2017. I find that aforementioned provisions of
Notification 35/2020 dated 3rd April, 2020 and Notification
55/2020 dated 27th June, 2020 squarely cover the instant
appeal. The appellant filed the subject refund claim on
06.05.2020 for the tax period 01.03.2018 to 31.03.2018.
Hence, rejection of the subject refund claim by the
Adjudicating Authority is not in consonance with the
relaxations granted by the government and is bad in law."
"As regards non satisfaction of Circular No. 121/40/2019-
GST mentioned by the adjudicating authority in the impugned
order I find that it pertains to GST on license fee charged by
the States for grant of Liquor licences to vendors and the
same is not relevant in the instant case. Hence, rejection of
the subject refund claim by the Adjudicating Authority is

arbitrary and bad in law. Accordingly, the impugned order
in as much as rejecting Appellant's refund claim is not
maintainable in law and liable to be set aside."
15. The appellate authority allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned
order.
16. The grounds of appeal as raised by appellant are that:
(a) the appellate authority erred in holding that the claim for July 2017 to
February 2018 is not time-barred;
(b) the relaxation notifications do not apply to claims already barred before
20.03.2020;
(c) the appellate authority ignored that there was no excess payment in
March 2018, rendering the claim unsustainable;
(d) the OIA violates Section 54 of the Act; and
(e) the OIA is legally untenable.
17. The case of the appellant, as it appears from the Review Order and the
APL-07, is as follows;
(a) The relevant date for a claim of refund on account of excess payment
of tax is, under clause (h) of the Explanation to Section 54, "the date of
payment of tax", that is, the date of filing of GSTR-3B for the month. The
last date for filing the refund claim for each month therefore falls two years
from the corresponding GSTR-3B, as set out in the following table.

GSTR-3B
GSTR-3B
Last date of filing
Date of filing
S.No.
month
filing date
claim
of claim
1 July, 2017 28.08.2017 27.08.2019 06.05.2020
2 August, 2017 20.09.2017 19.09.2019 06.05.2020
September,
3
20.10.2017 19.10.2019 06.05.2020
2017
4 October, 2017 19.11.2017 18.11.2019 06.05.2020
November,
5
19.12.2017 18.12.2019 06.05.2020
2017
December,
6
19.01.2018 18.01.2020 06.05.2020
2017
7 January, 2018 17.02.2018 16.02.2020 06.05.2020
February,
8
19.03.2018 18.03.2020 06.05.2020
2018
30.06.2020 (as per
Notification No.
9 March, 2018 19.04.2018
06.05.2020
35/2020 dated
03.04.2020)

(b) Even after the relaxation under Notification No. 35/2020 dated
03.04.2020 and Notification No. 55/2020 dated 27.06.2020, all claims
other than that for March 2018 are time-barred, because the relaxation
covers the period 20.03.2020 to 31.08.2020 and does not cover the claims

for July 2017 to February 2018, whose limitation had expired before that
period began.
(c) For March 2018 there was, per the OIO, an excess payment of Rs. -
2,42,846/- each under CGST and SGST, that is, no excess payment, so that
"the question of refund does not arise".
(d) The appellate authority allowed the appeal without considering the
facts and Section 54 of the Act read with the two notifications.
18. The respondent has filed detailed written submissions (styled "cross
objections"), ground-wise against the five grounds of the appellant, with
reliance on notifications, circulars, the Press Release dated 03.07.2019 and
GST Council minutes, a compilation of five judgments, and returns
(GSTR-1, GSTR-3B, GSTR-9, GSTR-9C) together with an extract
comparing tax reported in GSTR-3B and GSTR-1. Its contentions are
summarized below.
(a) FY 2017-18 was the first year of GST and a transition year. The
scheme of Sections 37, 38 and 39 and Rules 59, 60 and 61 contemplated
GSTR-1, GSTR-2 and GSTR-3, with GSTR-3 as the final reconciled
return. Circular No. 7/7/2017-GST dated 01.09.2017 provided for system-
based reconciliation, correction of GSTR-3B through GSTR-1/GSTR-2,
and carry-forward of reduction in output tax liability to the next month.
Circular No. 26/26/2017-GST dated 29.12.2017 kept that reconciliation
in abeyance, allowed differential figures for past months to be reported
on a net basis in the current month, and permitted refund where
adjustment is not feasible. The 27th (04.05.2018) and 29th (04.08.2018)
GST Council meetings recorded that GSTR-2 and GSTR-3 remained
suspended and that GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B would continue. The excess

therefore crystallised only through the March 2018 return and annual
reconciliation, and the refund of Rs. 1,35,34,594/- is one composite claim
for FY 2017-18 which cannot be split into monthly claims for limitation.
The Department, it is said, cannot rely on annual reconciliation and
simultaneously insist on monthly claims.

(b) Form GSTR-9, being the Annual Return, consolidates the taxpayer's
outward supplies, inward supplies, tax liability and tax paid for the
complete Financial Year. It therefore constitutes the proper basis for
identifying the final net excess payment for FY 2017-18.
(c) The CBIC Press Release records that where tax is paid in excess, "all
information may be declared in the annual return and refund (if eligible)
may be applied through FORM GST RFD-01A". The Respondent
contends that it acted in accordance with this, created a legitimate
expectation, and that the field formation cannot take a contrary position.
(d) With March 2018 / annual reconciliation as the relevant point, the
two-year period expired on 31.03.2020, which falls within the COVID
window; notification No. 35/2020 as amended by Notification No.
55/2020 extended it to 31.08.2020, and the application of 06.05.2020 is
in time. No part of the claim was time-barred before 20.03.2020. Without
prejudice, COVID-period extensions have received beneficial
interpretation, including through Notification No. 13/2022-Central Tax
and "the Supreme Court's suo motu limitation orders".
(e) The OIO, which itself records excess payment of Rs. 2,42,846/- each
in March 2018; the Department cannot approbate and reprobate or
improve its case beyond the OIO.

(f) Without prejudice, an amount paid over and above the actual liability
is not "tax" but a deposit retained without authority of law, retention of
which offends Article 265 of the Constitution. Section 54(1) itself speaks
of refund of "any other amount paid". Section 54 limitation does not apply
with the same rigour to such amounts. The incidence of the excess was
borne by the Bank and not passed on, and the Bank is ready to place
further material on unjust enrichment.
19. In support of the alternative plea and on the binding effect of High Court
decisions, the respondent has relied on the following judgments, which are
on record:
(i) East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs , AIR 1962
SC 1893 (Supreme Court);
(ii) Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax v. Oriental
Insurance Company Limited , 2023 (9) TMI 1252 (Delhi High Court),
decided on 20.09.2023, SERTA 3/2021;
(iii) Rajendra Narayan Mohanty v. Joint Commissioner of State Tax, CT
& GST Circle, Cuttack , 2026 (2) TMI 1101 (Orissa High Court), decided
on 12.02.2026, W.P.(C) No. 2271 of 2026;
(iv) Comsol / Cosmol Energy Private Limited v. State of Gujarat , [2021]
127 taxmann.com 736 (Gujarat), decided on 21.12.2020;
(v) Aalidhra Texcraft Engineers v. Union of India , R/Special Civil
Application No. 14554 of 2024, [2025] 170 taxmann.com 91 (Gujarat),
decided on 12.12.2024.
20. After the respondent had filed its written submissions, the appellant filed a
written rejoinder/counter-reply dated 06.10.2026. Reliance placed on ;

(i) the order dated 10.12.2021 of the Supreme Court in Union of India &
Ors. v. AAP and Company , Civil Appeal No. 5978/2021;
(ii) the judgment dated 28.10.2021 of the Supreme Court in Union of India
v. Bharti Airtel Ltd. & Ors. , (2021) 13 SCALE 301;
(iii) Assistant Collector of Customs & Ors. v. Anam Electrical
Manufacturing Co. , (1997) 5 SCC 744; and
(iv) the judgment dated 17.03.2026 of the Karnataka High Court in
Assistant Commissioner of Central Taxes v. M/s Merck Life Science Private
Limited , Writ Appeal No. 110 of 2026 and connected appeals.
The appellant denies all the contentions, interpretations and allegations of
the respondent and offers a point-wise rebuttal of its cross-objections. In
addition, the rejoinder makes the submissions summarized below.
21. In supplement of its earlier submission, the appellant submits that, on the
working made while processing the application, the tax paid against
outward supply for March 2018, after excluding the amount paid against
reverse-charge liability, was Rs. 2,24,27,372/- against a payable amount of
Rs. 2,28,18,174/-, a short payment of Rs. 4,85,692/- (CGST Rs. 2,42,846/-
and SGST Rs. 2,42,846/-).
22. The appellant relies on Union of India v. AAP and Company (civil appeal
no 5978/2021) , in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court recorded that the
Gujarat High Court judgment under challenge stood expressly overruled
by the three-Judge Bench decision in Bharti Airtel , and allowed the appeal
on the same terms. The appellant draws attention to paragraph 41 of Bharti
Airtel , where the Hon’ble Supreme Court declined to subscribe to the view
that Form GSTR-3B was only a temporary stop-gap arrangement and held
that the amendment of Rule 61(5) of the Rules 2017, with effect from

01.07.2017, reinforced the position that GSTR-3B is the return. From this
the appellant concludes that each tax period (month) stands on its own and
gives rise to its own cause of action.
23. The Appellant has furnished the following month-wise statement of the
GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 filing dates, the excess (+) or short (–) payment
(CGST and SGST taken together) and the last date for claiming refund
(The last three columns are tribunal’ own working to better explain the
submissions):
Date of
filing
GSTR-1
Excess (+) /
next
filed on
Month
short (–)
GSTR-3B
Last date
Tax
GSTR-3B
(excess
of filing
payment,
following
to claim
period
filed on
known
CGST+SGST
the month
refund
GSTR-1
from this
(Rs.)
filing of
date)
GSTR-1

Jul
Sept
28.08.2017 27.09.2017 3,93,193
20.10.2017 27.08.2019
2017
2017
Aug
20.09.2017 04.01.2018 23,07,701 Dec 2017 19.01.2018 19.09.2019
2017
Sep
20.10.2017 05.01.2018 83,08,057 Dec 2017 19.01.2018 19.10.2019
2017
Oct
19.11.2017 05.01.2018 31,12,530 Dec 2017 19.01.2018 18.11.2019
2017
Nov
Nil (short
19.12.2017 09.01.2018 (–) 13,45,215
Nil 18.12.2019
2017
payment)

Date of
filing
GSTR-1
Excess (+) /
next
filed on
Month
short (–)
GSTR-3B
Last date
Tax
GSTR-3B
(excess
of filing
payment,
following
to claim
period
filed on
known
CGST+SGST
the month
refund
GSTR-1
from this
(Rs.)
filing of
date)
GSTR-1

Dec
19.01.2018 09.02.2018 45,217 Jan 2018 17.02.2018 18.01.2020
2017
Jan
17.02.2018 12.03.2018 1,52,672 Feb 2018 19.03.2018 16.02.2020
2018
Feb
Mar
19.03.2018 11.04.2018 10,46,130
19.04.2018 18.03.2020
2018
2018
Mar
Nil (short
19.04.2018 09.05.2018 (–) 4,85,692
Nil 18.04.2020
2018
payment)
Net
1,35,34,593
total

24. On this statement the appellant submits as follows:
(a) The GSTR-1 for July 2017 was filed on 27.09.2017. From that date
the Respondent knew that it had paid Rs. 3,93,193/- in excess in the GSTR-
3B for July 2017. It could have adjusted the amount in the GSTR-3B for
September 2017, filed on 20.10.2017, after that GSTR-1. If adjustment was

not feasible, it should have filed a refund application within two years of
28.08.2017.
(b) The GSTR-1 for August 2017 was filed on 04.01.2018, and those for
September and October 2017 on 05.01.2018. From these dates the
Respondent knew of the excess paid for those months (Rs. 23,07,701/-, Rs.
83,08,057/- and Rs. 31,12,530/-). The GSTR-1 for November 2017
followed on 09.01.2018. The GSTR-3B for December 2017 was filed only
on 19.01.2018, after all these dates, and the excess could have been
adjusted there.
(c) The position is the same for the remaining months: the GSTR-1 for
December 2017 was filed on 09.02.2018, for January 2018 on 12.03.2018
and for February 2018 on 11.04.2018. In each case a later GSTR-3B was
filed after the GSTR-1, and the period for a claim under Section 54 of the
Act 2017 was still running.
25. The appellant therefore contends that the respondent cannot now plead that
the excess had to be "rolled over" and ascertained only after the year-end,
so as to claim that limitation runs from March 2018 and not from the dates
of payment. The Respondent had ample knowledge of the excess, and
ample opportunity to adjust it or to claim refund, within the statutory
period.
26. As per the appellant, self-assessment is the respondent's own duty. The
appellant relies on Section 59 of the Act 2017 and on paragraphs 32, 33
and 35 of Bharti Airtel (Supra), where, in substance, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that the registered person must do the self-assessment from his
books of account, invoices and records; that the common portal is merely
a facilitator and need not be the primary source; that the primary records
are not in the control of the tax authorities; that the position is no different

from the pre-GST regime; and that the role of the tax authorities comes
only at the stage of verification. The Rejoinder reproduces from paragraph
33:
"………………. The common portal is only a facilitator to
feed or retrieve such information and need not be the primary
source for doing self-assessment. The primary source is in
the form of agreements, invoices/challans, receipts of the
goods and services and books of accounts which are
maintained by the assessee manually/electronically. These
are not within the control of the tax
authorities…………………………."
27. The appellant adds that liability is ascertained from books of account and
invoices even without GSTR-1; that the respondent must have made its
calculations and reconciliations before filing GSTR-3B and GSTR-1; and
that a comparison of the two returns, as shown in the table above, readily
discloses the excess for each month.
28. The appellant also relies on paragraph 37 of Bharti Airtel (Supra)for the
proposition that Section 39(9) of the Act 2017 supplies the mechanism for
correcting an omission or incorrect particulars, namely in the return for the
month in which the error is noticed, and that the manner of discharging
liability (cash or credit) is an option which, once exercised, cannot be
reversed unless the Act and the Rules permit it.
“37. The question of reading down paragraph 4
Of the said Circular would have arisen only if the
same was to be in conflict with the express provision

in the 2017 Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
The express provision in the form of Section 39(9) clearly posits
that omission or incorrect particulars furnished in
the return in Form GSTR3B can be corrected
in the return to be furnished in the month or quarter
during which such omission or incorrect particulars are noticed.
This very position has been restated in the impugned Circular.
It is, therefore, not contrary to the statutory dispensation specified in
Section 39(9) of the Act. The High Court, however, erroneously noted
that there Is no provision in the Act, which restricts
such rectification of the return in the period in which
the error is noticed. It is then noted by the High Court that as
there is no possibility of getting refund of surplus or
excess ITC shown in the electronic credit ledger, therefore, the only remedy
that can enable the writ petitioner to enjoy the benefit of the seamless
utilization of the ITC is by way of rectification in its annual
tax return (Form GSTR3B) for the relevant period. Further, the
High Court in paragraph 23 of the impugned judgment, noted that the

relief sought in the case before it, was indispensable.
This logic does not commend to us. For, if there is no provision
regarding refund of surplus or excess ITC in the electronic credit ledger,
it does not follow that the assessee 40 concerned who has discharged
OTL by paying cash (which he is free to pay in cash in spite
of the surplus or excess electronic credit ledger account), can
later on, ask for swapping of the entries, so as to show the corresponding OTL
amount in the electronic cash ledger from where he can take refund.
Payment for discharge of OTL by cash or by way of availing of ITC,
is a matter of option, which having been exercised by the assessee, cannot be
reversed unless the Act and the Rules permit such reversal or swapping of
the entries. As a matter of fact, Section 39(9) provides for an
express mechanism to correct the error in returns for the month or
quarter during which such omission or incorrect particulars
have been noticed”.
29. The Appellant adds, to its submission that Circular No. 26/26/2017-GST
neither extends the two-year period nor shifts the relevant date, that the
Circular is subordinate to Section 54 and must be read in harmony with it.
To read into it a postponement of the relevant date would allow a claimant
to fix the commencement of limitation by its own delay
30. The appellant further lays stress on the fact that:

(a) the respondent has artificially clubbed independent tax transactions of
July 2017 to February 2018 into the March 2018 return in order to bring
time-barred claims within time; for an excess paid through a return, the
relevant date is the date on which that return was filed and not the end of
the financial year;
(b) no refund claim is filed on the basis of GSTR-9, which only
summarises transactions, tax paid and refunds claimed or pending for audit
alignment; refund claims must rest on the monthly returns; the later
calculation of a cumulative total does not establish later discovery, and the
Respondent's "voluntary non-adjustment" and annual consolidation did not
alter the relevant dates under Section 54; and
(c) an administrative press release, which is clarificatory, cannot alter or
extend a period of limitation fixed by Hon’ble Parliament; the release itself
speaks of refund "(if eligible)", and eligibility is bound by the two-year
period; a claim already barred is not revived by disclosure in GSTR-9.
31. The appellant maintains that the claim is governed by Section 54(1) read
with clause (h) of the Explanation of the Act 2017. It rejects the plea that
an excess payment is in the nature of a deposit outside Section 54 of the
Act 2017. Section 54(1) of the Act 2017 covers refund of "any tax and
interest, if any, paid on such tax or any other amount paid by him", and the
words "any other amount" are wide enough to include payments made
under mistake or an erroneous interpretation. The Act 2017 is a complete
and self-contained code. The two-year limit cannot be bypassed by an
appeal to Article 226 or to the Limitation Act, 1963, whose Sections 5 and
17 cannot be invoked by officers unless the special statute so provides. The
officer had no choice but to reject the application.

32. The appellant seeks to distinguish Oriental Insurance , Comsol Energy and
Rajendra Narayan Mohanty (All Supra) on the ground that in each the
amount was admittedly or demonstrably not leviable, or had been paid
twice, so that its retention was without authority of law, whereas the
present claim is, at best, a disputed reconciliation of monthly liability. The
appellant also submits that the contention that the excess was paid without
authority of law raises a separate defence which does not arise on the facts.
33. Beside the above noted dictums of Superior courts, appellant relies on:
(a) Anam Electrical Manufacturing Co. (Supra), in which the Honble
Supreme Court, applying the directions in Mafatlal Industries , held that a
refund application filed beyond the period prescribed by the Central Excise
Act or the Customs Act is untenable, and that a direction to consider it
without reference to that period is unsustainable and must be set aside. The
appellant submits that this supports the statutory limit for ordinary excess-
tax claims, as distinct from claims of refund under unconstitutional
provisions;
(b) Merck Life Science Private Limited (Supra) , for the proposition that the
two-year period under Section 54(1) is mandatory for the tax authority who,
being a creature of the statute, cannot condone delay; It was held that
"The period of two years prescribed under Section 54 of the
CGST Act, 2017 is mandatory."
34. The appellant concludes that none of these judgments allows a known,
earlier excess payment to acquire a fresh "relevant date" in March 2018
through annual consolidation, and reiterates its prayer that the OIA be set
aside and the OIO restored.

35. On the pleadings, the record and the submissions of the parties, the
following issues arise for determination:
Issue No.1: Whether the relevant date for a single composite refund claim for
excess tax paid during FY 2017-18 is to be taken from the annual reconciliation,
i.e., March 2018, or whether limitation must be examined separately for the
excess tax paid with each monthly GSTR-3B, the relevant date being the date of
that payment?
Issue No. 2 : Whether the claim for July 2017 to February 2018 is barred by
limitation under Section 54(1) of the Act 2017, and whether Notification No.
35/2020-Central Tax, as amended by Notification No. 55/2020-Central Tax,
saves that claim; and the position as regards March 2018?
Issue No. 3 : Whether, in the alternative, the excess amount is an amount paid
without authority of law within Article 265 of the Constitution, so that Section
54(1) of the Act 2017 does not bar its refund, in the light of the decisions relied
on by the Respondent?
Issue No. 4 : Whether there was any excess payment of tax for March 2018, and
whether Ground 3 of the Appellant/Department is contrary to the OIO?
36. Certain submissions of the parties are common to, or bear upon, all the
issues. They are recorded here and are not repeated under each issue.
(a) Both parties accept that the claim is governed by Section 54(1) of the
Act 2017 and that, for a claim of excess payment of tax, the relevant date
is, under clause (h) of the Explanation, "the date of payment of tax". The
appellant reads that date as the date of filing of GSTR-3B for each month,
per contra the respondent contends that, where the excess is rolled over

from month to month, the relevant date is reckoned where the rolled-over
excess finally stands, namely March 2018.
(b) The respondent has not disputed the dates of filing of the monthly
GSTR-3B returns on which the appellant's computation of the last dates is
based. Both parties proceed on the footing that the application (ARN
AA070520003182Z) was filed on 06.05.2020 and that notification No.
35/2020-Central Tax, as amended by notification No. 55/2020-Central
Tax, is the relevant relaxation.
(c) The appellant accepts, and the respondent contends, that the claim for
March 2018 was in time by virtue of those notifications; the dispute as to
March 2018 is whether any excess was paid for that month.
(d) Both parties rely on Circulars issued by the CBIC, though for opposite
purposes.
(e) The appellant submits that Circular No. 7/7/2017-GST was kept in
abeyance by paragraph 3.2 of Circular No. 26/26/2017-GST "till such
time" as the system-based reconciliation was operationalized; the
respondent submits that GSTR-2 and GSTR-3 were never operationalized
and that Circular No. 26/26/2017-GST itself permitted netting in later
returns and refund only where adjustment was no longer feasible.

37. We have considered the record, being the SCN, the OIO, the OIA, the
Review Order, the APL-07, the respondent's written submissions with its
compilations, and the five judgments relied on. We have also heard Ld. DC
Sh. Rahul Kumar for the appellant and also Sh. Shrinath R. Ld. CA along
with Sh. Shiva Kumar G. Ld. Counsel for the respondent. Our findings
issue wise are as under;

38. Issue No 1:
Whether the relevant date for a single composite refund claim for excess tax
paid during FY 2017-18 is to be taken from the annual reconciliation, i.e., March
2018, or whether limitation must be examined separately for the excess tax paid
with each monthly GSTR-3B, the relevant date being the date of that payment?

39. The learned authorised representative of the appellant with full vehemence
at his command argued that the appellate authority failed to apply Section
54 of the Act 2017. The relevant date for a refund of excess payment of
tax, under section 54, explanation {clause (h)} of the Act 2017 is the date
of payment of tax, that is, the date of filing of GSTR-3B for the month, and
limitation runs from each such date. As to Circular No. 26/26/2017-GST,
relying on paragraph 4 thereof, the appellant submitted that:
(a) the circular allows a carry forward only for adjustment in the return(s)
of "subsequent month(s)"; it cannot operate for an indefinite period, and
the law does not permit an excess to be carried forward on a continuing,
month-to-month basis so as to keep the claim alive;
(b) where adjustment is not feasible the circular itself directs that refund
"may be claimed"; such a claim is then governed by Section 54(1) of the
Act 2017 and the relevant date in clause (h); the circular does not extend
the two-year period or shift the relevant date, and carry forward of excess
tax does not do so; and
(c) Circular No. 7/7/2017-GST, on which the respondent relies, was kept
in abeyance by paragraph 3.2 of Circular No. 26/26/2017-GST.

40. On this issue the Ld. Authorized representative of the appellant further
relied on its rejoinder that each tax period stands on its own cause of action
( Union of India v. AAP and Company ; Bharti Airtel , (Supra) paragraph 41);
that the respondent knew of the excess for each month from the filing of
the corresponding GSTR-1 and had later GSTR-3B returns in which to
adjust it or, failing adjustment, time to apply for refund; that self-
assessment is the Respondent's duty (Section 59 of the Act 2017; Bharti
Airtel , (Supra) paragraphs 32, 33 and 35); that Section 39(9) of the Act
2017 is not a licence to defer self-assessment to annual reconciliation; that
the circular is subordinate to Section 54 of the Act 2017; that the
respondent has artificially clubbed independent monthly transactions into
March 2018; and that disclosure in GSTR-9 and the Press Release dated
03.07.2019 cannot alter or extend the period of limitation.
41. Simultaneously with full vigour and enthusiasm, the learned counsel for
the respondent submitted that the threshold question is whether the period
is to be computed month-wise or on a consolidated basis; if the
computation is month-wise the Respondent would have no case, and it
therefore submits that the computation must be consolidated, by reference
to March 2018, the close of the financial year. Relying on paragraphs 6, 7
and 10 of circular No. 7/7/2017-GST, the respondent submitted that:
(a) errors in GSTR-3B may be corrected in GSTR-1 or GSTR-2 and the
revised liability is reflected in GSTR-3 "for that particular month", so that
correction was to be part of a system reconciliation and not a separate
month-wise refund event;
(b) the tax paid through the cash and credit ledgers is displayed in GSTR-
3 and, where there is no difference, GSTR-3 is submitted "without any
additional payment of tax"; and

(c) where the output tax liability per GSTR-1/GSTR-2 is less than per
GSTR-3B, the excess carried forward to the next month return and offset
against the tax liability of next month.
42. On this scheme, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent argued that the excess
was to be rolled over from month to month and the unadjusted balance
emerged only at the end of the year, in March 2018. GSTR-2 and GSTR-3
were never operationalized; circular No. 26/26/2017-GST itself permitted
past-month differentials to be netted in later returns and refund to be
claimed only where adjustment was no longer feasible; and that the
appellant cannot now be permitted to say that each month had to be claimed
separately. The respondent accepts that the relevant date is "the date of
payment of tax" under clause (h), but contends that where the excess is
rolled over it is to be reckoned at the point where the rolled-over excess
finally rests.
43. It was further highlighted by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent that the
respondent's case is that, during the transition year, the promised GSTR-
2/GSTR-3 reconciliation was not operationalized, that Circular Nos.
7/7/2017-GST and 26/26/2017-GST and the Council minutes provided for
netting, carry-forward and adjustment, and that the unadjusted excess
therefore "crystallized" in March 2018.
We have taken note of rival submissions on this point. Our findings on this
issue are as under.
44. We find it relevant to understand the provisions of Sec 54 of CGST Act the
relevant part is reproduced as under;

Section 54, CGST Act, 2017: Refund of tax
(1) Any person claiming refund of any tax and interest, if any, paid on
such tax or any other amount paid by him, may make an application before the
expiry of two years from the relevant date in such form and manner as may be
prescribed:

Provided that a registered person, claiming refund of any balance in the
electronic cash ledger in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (6) of
section 49, may claim such refund in the return furnished under section 39 in
such manner as may be prescribed.

(3) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (10), a registered person may claim
refund of any unutilised input tax credit at the end of any tax period:

Provided that……………
.
.
.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,—

(2) "relevant date" means—

…
(h) in any other case, the date of payment of tax.
45. Firstly, the circulars and Press Release relied upon do not purport to alter
the Explanation to Section 54 of the Act 2017, the two-year period, or the
relevant date. Paragraph 10 of Circular No. 7/7/2017-GST speaks of
carrying forward a reduction in output liability "to be offset against the
output liability of the next month"; it deals with adjustment, not refund or
limitation. The relevant part of this circular 7/7/2017-GST is reproduced
below;
“10. Where the output tax liability of the registered person
as per the details furnished in FORM GSTR-1 and FORM
GSTR-2 is less than the output tax liability as per the details
furnished in the FORM GSTR-3B and the same is not offset
by a corresponding reduction in the input tax credit to which
he is entitled, the excess shall be carried forward to the next
month's return to be offset against the output liability of the
next month by the taxpayer when he signs and submits the
return in FORM GSTR-3. However, simultaneously, if there
is a decrease in the eligible input tax credit, the same will be
adjusted against the above-mentioned reduction in output tax
liability and the balance, if any, of the reduction in output tax
liability shall be carried forward to the next month's return
to be offset against the output liability of the next month.”

46. This circular 7/7/2017-GST stands kept in abeyance vide paragraph 3.2 of
Circular No. 26/26/2017-GST. Paragraph 4 of the later Circular, mentioned
above is reproduced as under;
3.2 Since, the GST Council has decided that the time period
of filing of FORM GSTR-2 and FORM GSTR-3 for the month
of July 2017 to March 2018 would be worked out by a
committee of officers, the system-based reconciliation
prescribed under Circular No. 7/7/2017-GST dated 1st
September 2017 can only be operationalized after the
relevant notification is issued. The said circular is therefore
kept in abeyance till such time.
47. Secondly , the Circular No. 26/26/2017-GST contemplates that the excess
is first to be adjusted in later returns, and refund arises only where that is
not feasible. Para 4 of the Circular is reproduced below.
“4. It is clarified that as return in FORM GSTR-3B do
not contain provisions for reporting of differential figures for
past month(s), the said figures may be reported on net basis
alongwith the values for current month itself in appropriate
tables i.e. Table No. 3.1, 3.2, 4 and 5, as the case may be. It
may be noted that while making adjustment in the output tax
liability or input tax credit, there can be no negative entries
in the FORM GSTR-3B. The amount remaining for
adjustment, if any, may be adjusted in the return(s) in FORM
GSTR-3B of subsequent month(s) and, in cases where such
adjustment is not feasible, refund may be claimed. Where
adjustments have been made in FORM GSTR-3B of multiple
months, corresponding adjustments in FORM GSTR-1

should also preferably be made in the corresponding
months .”
48. The respondent's written submissions assert that generally those
corrections were made progressively and carried forward, but do not
identify any return in which a differential of an earlier month was actually
reported on a net basis. The extract on record prepared by the appellant, as
submitted in the table below, compares tax paid against outward supply as
per GSTR-3B with tax payable against outward supply in GSTR-1 and
excess /short payment of tax month by month for CGST and SGST.
Comparison between GSTR3-B and GSTR-1
Tax paid against
Tax payable against
outward supply as per
outward supply as per
Excess/Short payment of tax
Tax
GSTR 3B
GSTR 1
perio
d
CGST SGST CGST SGST CGST SGST TOTAL
A B C D E (A-C) F (B-D) G (E+F)
Jul-17 82,39,254 82,39,254 80,42,657 80,42,657 1,96,597 1,96,597 3,93,193
Aug-
11,53,85
11,53,85
74,16,924 74,16,924 62,63,074 62,63,074
23,07,701
17
0
0
Sep-
1,44,30,50
1,44,30,50
1,02,76,47
1,02,76,47
41,54,02
41,54,02
83,08,057
17
4
4
6
6
9
9
Oct-
15,56,26
15,56,26
79,76,029 79,76,029 64,19,764 64,19,764
31,12,530
17
5
5
Nov-
69,14,316 69,14,316 75,86,924 75,86,924 -6,72,608 -6,72,608 -13,45,215
17
Dec-
1,06,61,71
1,06,61,71
1,06,39,10
1,06,39,10
22,609 22,609 45,217
17
1
1
3
3

Tax paid against
Tax payable against
outward supply as per
outward supply as per
Excess/Short payment of tax
Tax
GSTR 3B
GSTR 1
perio
d
CGST SGST CGST SGST CGST SGST TOTAL
A B C D E (A-C) F (B-D) G (E+F)
Jan-18 76,08,767 76,08,767 75,32,431 75,32,431 76,336 76,336 1,52,672
Feb-
67,78,704 67,78,704 62,55,639 62,55,639 5,23,065 5,23,065 10,46,130
18
Mar-
1,11,66,24
1,11,66,24
1,14,09,08
1,14,09,08
-2,42,846 -2,42,846 -4,85,692
18
1
1
7
7
67,67,29
67,67,29
1,35,34,59
Net Total
6
6
3

The difference of tax between the payment and the liability is identifiable
month by month in the tabular data. This data filed by the appellant
indicates that there is excess payment of tax in GSTR 3B viz a viz tax
payable against outward supply as per GSTR1 in every month for the
period July 2017 to Feb 2018, except for the month of Nov 2017. In the
month of March 2018, though there is shortfall of tax paid in GSTR 3B viz
a viz GSTR1 of Rs 2,42,846 under each head of CGST and SGST, there is
tax payment of Rs 1,11,66,241/- under each head. The statement does not
indicate any adjustment of excess paid in the return(s) in FORM 3B in
subsequent months as prescribed under circular 26/26/2017-GST.
49. Thirdly , the Press Release dated 03.07.2019 says that, where tax is paid in
excess, information may be declared in the annual return and refund, if
eligible, may be applied for through FORM GST RFD-01A. It does not
deal with or alter the relevant date under Sec 54 of the Act 2017. No

assurance is shown that limitation would run only from year-end, and the
plea of legitimate expectation has no foundation on this record. The words
"if eligible" are to be seen within the statutory framework of Sec 54 of the
Act 2017. As per Section 59 of the Act 2017, the taxpayer is required to
self-assess the tax payable and furnish a return for each tax period as
prescribed under Section 39 of the Act 2017. The limitation under Section
54 runs from the date of payment of tax. GSTR-9, being the Annual Return
under Section 44 of the Act, 2017, summarizes the taxpayer's outward
supplies, inward supplies, tax liability tax paid, demands and refunds for
the Financial Year.
50. Fourthly , the later amendments to Rule 61(5) (notification Nos. 49/2019
and 82/2020) and the discontinuance of GSTR-3 concern the mechanism
of filing returns. They do not amend Section 54 of the Act 2017. Section
39(9) of the Act, as described by the respondent, is a provision for
rectifying incorrect particulars in a return; it does not purport to prescribe
or postpone the relevant date for a refund. The non-operationalization of
GSTR-3 did not suspend Section 54 of the Act 2017: the respondent could,
and did, apply under Section 54 of the Act 2017 by FORM GST RFD-01
in May 2020, and nothing prevented it from doing so earlier for the months
whose limitation was still running.
51. Fifthly , the OIA and the tax-period entry in the RFD-01 describe the claim
as one for "March 2018". The Respondent's own case before us, however,
is that the claim is for the excess of the whole of F.Y. 2017-18, and the
respondent's own statement covers July 2017 to March 2018. The label in
an application cannot fix the limitation for what is in substance a claim
covering nine separate payments, and filing one application for the
aggregate cannot alter the relevant date of each payment.
52. Sixthly , the appellant has, in its rejoinder, drawn attention to paragraph 41
of Bharti Airtel , where the Hon’ble Supreme Court is stated to have

declined to accept that GSTR-3B was only a temporary stop-gap
arrangement and to have held that the amendment of Rule 61(5) reinforced
that GSTR-3B is the return. The respondent's case that GSTR-3 was the
final reconciled return, and that the monthly GSTR-3B was provisional
until the year-end, is not consistent with that view and, in any event, does
not displace clause (h) of the Explanation, which ties the relevant date to
the payment of tax and not to any later return.
53. We accordingly hold that the refund claim is not a single composite claim
for limitation. The excess, if any, paid with the GSTR-3B of a month has,
as its relevant date, the date of filing of that GSTR-3B, and limitation has
to be examined separately for each month. The OIA, which proceeded
solely on the tax period mentioned in the application and its date of filing,
did not undertake this examination.
54. Issue No 2:
Whether the claim for July 2017 to February 2018 is barred by limitation
under Section 54(1) of the Act 2017, and whether Notification No. 35/2020-
Central Tax, as amended by Notification No. 55/2020-Central Tax, saves that
claim; and the position as regards March 2018.
55. The Ld. Authorized representative of the appellant submitted that, on the
footing that limitation runs from each date of payment of tax, the last dates
for the months July 2017 to February 2018 fell between 27.08.2019 and
18.03.2020 and had expired before the relaxation window opened on
20.03.2020. The relaxation notifications cannot revive a claim already
barred. The appellant also relied on Merck Life Science (Supra) for the
proposition that the two-year period under Section 54(1) of the ACT 2017
is mandatory and cannot be condoned by the tax authority, and submitted
that the Limitation Act, 1963 is not available unless the special statute so
provides.

56. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent simultaneously submitted that, with
March 2018 as the relevant point, the two-year period expired on
31.03.2020, within the period covered by Notification No. 35/2020-Central
Tax as amended by Notification No. 55/2020-Central Tax, and the
application of 06.05.2020 was therefore in time. No part of the claim, it
was said, was time-barred before 20.03.2020. Without prejudice, the
respondent referred generally to Notification No. 13/2022-Central Tax and
the suo motu limitation orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
57. Applying clause (h) of Explanation to S.54 of the Act 2017, the last dates
for filing refund claims for the months July 2017 to February 2018 are
those in the table above, ranging from 27.08.2019 to 18.03.2020, and each
expired before the application was filed on 06.05.2020. The respondent has
not disputed those dates. Even on the footing that the last date for February
2018 is 19.03.2020 rather than 18.03.2020, it falls before 20.03.2020.
58. Now we shall refer to the notification No. 35/2020-Central Tax dated
03.04.2020 issued under Section 168A, provides in clause (i) that:
"where, any time limit for completion or compliance of any
action, by any authority or by any person, has been specified
in, or prescribed or notified under the said Act, which falls
during the period from the 20th day of March, 2020 to the
29th day of June, 2020, and where completion or compliance
of such action has not been made within such time, then, the
time limit for completion or compliance of such action, shall
be extended upto the 30th day of June, 2020, including for the
purposes of-- (a) completion of any proceeding or passing of
any order or issuance of any notice, intimation, notification,
sanction or approval or such other action ... ; or (b) filing of
any appeal, reply or application or furnishing of any report,

document, return, statement or such other record, by
whatever name called, under the provisions of the Acts stated
above;"
The extension is stated not to apply to
compliances under certain provisions but Section 54 of the
Act 2017 is not in the excluded list.

59. The notification 35/20 dated 03.04.2020 of the ACT 2017 does not extend
every time limit within the relevant months. Its text, reproduced above,
operates on "any time limit ... which falls during the period from the 20th
day of March, 2020 to the 29th day of June 2020" (later 30th August, 2020)
and, where the action has not been done within such time, extends the limit
to 30th June, 2020 (later 31st August, 2020). What determines its
application is the date on which the time limit falls, not the date on which
the application is actually filed. The appellate authority held that the
notifications "squarely cover" the appeal because the claim was filed on
06.05.2020, within the relaxation period. That reasoning looks to the date
of filing and does not ask whether the limit for the particular payment fell
within the window. A limit that had already expired before 20.03.2020 is
not one "which falls during" the window, and nothing in the Notification
35/20 which revives a period that had lapsed before its commencement.
The appellate authority itself recorded that the claim "has been filed after
lapse of statutory time limit in terms of Section 54(1)".
60. The claims for July 2017 to February 2018 therefore had all expired before
20.03.2020 with regard to the notification 35/20 dated 03.04.2020 as
amended by Notification No. 55/2020-Central Tax. They are barred by
Section 54(1) of the Act 2017, unless the respondent succeeds on the
alternative plea under Issue 3.

61. The appellant's reliance on Merck Life Science (Supra) is to the same effect
as the conclusion reached above.
62. As regards March 2018, the GSTR-3B was filed on 19.04.2018 and the last
date, on the Appellant’s computation, was 18.04.2020. That date falls
within the window. The limit stood extended to 30.06.2020 and then to
31.08.2020, and Section 54 of the Act 2017 is not among the excluded
provisions in the notification. The application of 06.05.2020 was in time.
This was accepted in the OIO itself and is not disputed in the Appellant’
grounds. The ground on which the SCN proposed to reject the March 2018
claim, namely that the relevant date was 18.04.2020, was thus rightly not
pursued in the OIO.
63. Therefore, the relaxation granted by notification No. 35/2020, as amended
by notification No. 55/2020, affords no refund to the respondent. For the
preceding months, the limit had run out before the exclusion window
opened, and the notifications do not reach back to revive it. For march
2018, though the application was well in time by virtue of the same
notifications, the respondent’s own figures disclose no excess payment,
leaving nothing to be refunded.
64. Be that as it may, the matter does not stop here. The tribunal is also
simultaneously duty bound to give effect to notification No. 13/2022-
Central Tax dated 05.07.2022 and to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation , Suo Motu Writ
Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, decided on 10.01.2022 ((2022) 3 SCC 117 (here
in after called Re: Cognizance judgement). Those operate independently of
the notifications 35/2020 and 55/2020 considered above. We shall now
examine their effect on the claim for February 2018.
65. Pertinently the notification No. 13/2022-Central Tax, issued under Section
168A of the Act 2017, excludes the period from 01.03.2020 to 28.02.2022
for computing the period of limitation for filing a refund application under

Section 54 of the Act 2017. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Re: Cognizance
judgement (Supra) had excluded the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022
for the purposes of limitation prescribed under any general or special law,
in respect of all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. For ready
reference, paragraph 5 of Re: Cognizance judgement (Supra) is reproduced
in full:
“5. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned
counsel and the impact of the surge of the virus on public health and
adversities faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions, we deem it
appropriate to dispose of the M.A. No. 21 of 2022 with the following
directions:
I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation
of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and
23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till
28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of
limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special
laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings.
II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as
on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from
01.03.2022.
III.
In cases where the limitation would have expired during the
period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding
the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons
shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In
the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining,
with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that
longer period shall apply.

IV. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till
28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the
periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any
other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for
instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court
or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of
proceedings.”
66. The Act 2017 being a special law, direction I of Re: Cognizance judgement
(Supra) applies to it. Direction IV of this judgement, which extends to “any
other laws which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting
proceedings”, leads to the same result.
67. In the case in hand the GSTR-3B for February 2018 was filed on
19.03.2018. The last date for claiming refund was therefore 18.03.2020 (or,
at the latest, 19.03.2020). The two-year period thus had already expired
during the exclusion window. Here the limitation expired within the
window, so direction III as contained in Recognisance judgement (Supra)
squarely applies. The respondent had a limitation period of 90 days from
01.03.2022 i.e., up to 29.05.2022. The application of the respondent dated
06.05.2020 was in fact filed during the exclusion window itself. It is in
time for February 2018 on any computation.
68. However, the benefit of notification 13/2022 or of the Recognisance
judgement (Supra) is not available for July 2017 to January 2018. The last
dates for those months, 27.08.2019 to 16.02.2020 which had expired before
the exclusion window commenced whether it is reckoned from 01.03.2020
by virtue of notification 13/2022 or from 15.03.2020 by Re: Cognizance

judgement (Supra). Those claims remain barred under Section 54(1) of the
Act 2017.
69. The respondent has not specifically pressed the claim for February 2018.
That makes no difference. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Thakur Amar
Singhji v. State of Rajasthan , (1955) 2 SCR 303 (Constitution Bench), held
in substance as follows:
“There can be no estoppel against a statute, and a
concession, or a shifting position, on a question of law binds
neither the party who has taken it nor the tribunal before
whom it is taken.”
In R. Nagaraj (Dead) through LRs v. Rajmani , 2025 INSC 478, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court reiterated that:
“It is the duty of every court to ascertain whether a lis has
been initiated within the time prescribed by law, a question
that may be raised, and must be answered, at any stage, even
where the parties themselves have not raised it.”
In Satyendra Kumar v. Raj Nath Dubey , 2016 SCC OnLine SC 478, relying on
Mathura Prasad Sarjoo Jaiswal v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy , (1970) 1 SCC 613,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:
“The principle of estoppel operates against the parties and
not against the court, and nothing comes in the way of a
competent court deciding a pure question of law correctly.”
In National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax , (1998) 229
ITR 383 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that:

“A question of law arising on facts already on record may be
entertained although it was not raised before the authorities
below, the object being the determination of the correct
liability in accordance with law.”
70. The limitation for February 2018 is a pure question of law on admitted
facts. The claim filed on 06.05.2020 already includes the excess paid with
the GSTR-3B for the month of February 2018. The appellant has had full
opportunity to address the dates and the limitation, and no prejudice is
caused to it. This tribunal is here for justice. It is bound to give effect to the
exclusion in terms of the intent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Re:
Cognizance judgement (Supra) and of Notification No. 13/2022-Central
Tax, in their letter and spirit. To deny a refund lawfully due, merely
because the respondent did not frame its claim month wise, would defeat
that intent.
71. We accordingly hold that the respondent is entitled to the refund for
February 2018, in terms of notification No. 13/2022 and the judgment
dated 10.01.2022 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Re: Cognizance
judgement (Supra).
72. Issue 3:
Whether, in the alternative, the excess amount is an amount paid without
authority of law within Article 265 of the Constitution, so that Section 54(1) of
the Act 2017 does not bar its refund, in the light of the decisions relied on by the
Respondent?
73. In the alternative, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the tax
having been paid by mistake, the refund can be granted; that retention of
an amount paid in excess of liability is hit by Article 265 of the

Constitution; that an amount so paid is not "tax" but a deposit retained
without authority of law; that Section 54(1) itself speaks of "any other
amount paid" and its limitation does not apply with the same rigour to such
amounts; and that the incidence of the excess was borne by the Bank and
not passed on. Ld. Counsel for the respondent relied on Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. (Delhi High Court, 2023), Rajendra Narayan Mohanty
(Orissa High Court, 2026) (Supra), Cosmol Energy and Aalidhra Texcraft
(Gujarat High Court) (Supra), and on East India Commercial Co. Ltd.
(Supreme Court, 1962) (Supra) for the binding effect of the law declared
by the jurisdictional High Court.
74. The Ld. Authorized representative of the appellant submitted that Section
54(1) of the Act 2017 covers "any other amount paid", which includes
payments made under mistake; that the CGST Act is a complete and self-
contained code whose two-year limit cannot be bypassed by Article 226 or
the Limitation Act, 1963; that Oriental Insurance , Comsol Energy (Supra)
and Rajendra Narayan Mohanty (Supra) are distinguishable because in
each the amount was admittedly or demonstrably not leviable or had been
paid twice, whereas the present claim is at best a disputed reconciliation of
monthly liability; that Anam Electrical Manufacturing Co. supports the
statutory limit for ordinary excess-tax claims as distinct from claims under
unconstitutional provisions; that, by filing FORM GST RFD-01, the
Respondent voluntarily submitted to Sections 54 and 56 of the Act 2017;
and that the plea of payment without authority of law raises a separate
defence which does not arise on the facts.
75. The question is therefore what the jurisdictional High Court has laid down,
and whether the respondent's case falls within it. The decision of the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi relied on is Oriental Insurance Company
Limited (2023) (Supra). It arose under Section 11B of the Central Excise
Act, 1944. The insurer, though exempt under a notification, had

inadvertently continued to pay service tax. The Hon’ble High Court
recorded that "there is no dispute inter parties with respect to the
respondent not being liable to pay service tax", and held:
“7. We may note before proceeding further that there is
no dispute inter partes with respect to the respondent not
being liable to pay service tax in terms of the provisions made
in the Finance Act, 1994 [The 1994 Act]. It may only be
additionally noted that the respondent was engaged in the
general insurance business and was registered with the
Service Tax Department under the categories of "General
Insurance Service" and "Re-insurance Services". It had been
engaged by the Government of Uttar Pradesh to provide
insurance services under the Rashtriya Swasthya Bima
Yojana. Undisputedly, in terms of the Notification dated 01
March 2011, exemption was accorded under Section
65(105)(d) of the 1994 Act in respect of services provided by
an insurer to any person, for providing insurance under the
scheme as aforenoted.
8. However, and inadvertently, the respondent continued to pay
service tax between March 2011 to November 2011 till that
mistake was ultimately rectified. This led to the filing of a
refund claim on 23 December 2013. The CESTAT has taken
note of various decisions rendered by different High Courts
and which had held that where service tax had been paid
under a mistake, there would exist no justification for the
assessee being bound by the period of one year as prescribed
under Section 11B of the Act, and that in such a situation, it

would be the date when the mistake was discovered which
would be relevant.
12. Similar is the view which has been taken by the
Bombay High Court in Parijat Construction vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik 2017 SCC Online
Bom 9480. It would thus appear that High Courts across the
board have taken a consistent view that where once it is found
that the assessee was not liable to be subjected to a service
tax, it would not be bound by the limitation as prescribed
under Section 11B of the Act.
13. This would also appear to appeal to reason since
undisputedly and in terms of Article 265 of the Constitution,
the Union can only levy a tax which is authorized by law.
Since it is conceded before us that the respondent was not
liable to pay any service tax, it would be wholly unjust to
permit the Union to retain monies which were not liable to be
collected or were authorized by law. We find that an identical
view has been expressed by a Division Bench of the Madras
High Court in 3E Infotech vs. CESTAT, Chennai 2018 SCC
Online Mad 13637.”
76. The same limitation appears in the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi 's own
statement of the position in GST, as extracted in the Hon’ble Orissa High
Court judgment 2026 (2) TMI 1101 titled Rajendra Narayan Mohanty Vs
Joint Commissioner

5.5. It may be apt at this juncture to refer to decision rendered by the
Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. Vrs.
Additional Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax Appeals-II,
2023: DHC:6874-DB, noticing the provisions of Article 265 of the
Constitution vis-à-vis refund of amount deposited under mistake. It is
held therein as follows:
"14. The period of limitation for applying for a refund as
prescribed under Section 54 of the CGST Act, would not
apply where GST is not chargeable and it is established an
amount has been deposited under a mistake of law."
77. Further the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Sethi Sons (India) Vrs.
Assistant Commissioner, 2023 SCC On Line Del 8351 observed as
follows:
"26. In Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. The Joint Commissioner
of GST (Appeals-1), 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 7810, the
learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court has held that
the period of two years as stipulated in Section 54(1) of the
CGST Act is directory and not mandatory. Thus, even if an
application is made beyond the period of two years, the
taxpayer's claim cannot be denied. We respectfully have
reservation regarding this view. However, we do accept that
if the taxpayer has made a bona fide attempt to make an
application but was prevented to do so on account of
technical glitches or for any reason attributable to GST
authorities, its claim for refund cannot be denied on account
of delay."

Therefore, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi expressed reservation about
treating the two-year period in Section 54(1) of the Act 2017 as directory,
while accepting that a claim cannot be denied where a bona fide attempt
was prevented by technical glitches or reasons attributable to the GST
authorities.

78. The other three decisions are of the Hon’ble Gujarat and Orissa High
Courts, in each, the character of the amount as one paid without authority
of law was either declared, admitted or found on undisputed material:
(a) In Cosmol / Comsol Energy (Supra): IGST had been paid on ocean
freight under reverse charge, and the levy itself had been declared
unconstitutional in the applicant's own case. Brief facts and ratio as
culled out from judgement is;
“2. The writ-applicant herein filed the refund claims of the
Integrated Goods and Services Tax (for short, the 'IGST')
paid on the Ocean Freight under the reverse charge
mechanism after the decision of this Court in the writ-
applicant's own case which was connected with the main
petition of Mohit Minerals (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [2020]
113 taxmann.com 436/78 GST 579. This Court, vide Order
and Judgment dated 23-1-2019, held that the Notification No.
8/2017 - Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28-6-2017 and the Entry
No. 10 of the Notification No. 10/2017 under the Integrated
Tax (Rate) dated 28-6-2017 lack legislative competency and
the same were accordingly declared as unconstitutional.

3. Upon filing of the refund claims, the respondent no. 3 issued the
Deficiency Memo in both the claims separately on an erroneous
premise that the refund claims were not filed within the statutory time
limit as provided under section 54 of the CGST Act in as much as
Section 54 does not provide separate category for claiming refund of
such amount.
11. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Court
in the case of Gokul Agro Resources Ltd. v. Union of India
[2020] 116 taxmann.com 1/80 GST 169, wherein this Court
directed the respondent to pass an appropriate order in the
refund application preferred by the assessee without raising
any technical issue, within a period of four weeks. The
relevant paragraph of the finding of this Hon'ble Court is as
under:
"6 We may only say that since the Notification has been struck down as
ultra vires, as a consequence of the same, the writ applicant seeks
refund of the amount paid towards the IGST. However, for this purpose,
the writ applicant will have to prefer an appropriate application
addressed to the competent authority. If any such application is
preferred for the refund of the amount, the authority concerned shall
immediately look into the same and pass an appropriate order in
accordance with law keeping in mind the decision of this Court
rendered in the case of Mohit Minerals (supra). The competent
authority shall not raise any technical issue with regard to the claim for
refund of the IGST amount. Let this exercise be undertaken within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of this order."

12. Similarly, this Court, in the case of Bharat Oman Refineries Ltd. v. Union
of India [2020] 120 taxmann.com 301 directed the respondent to sanction
the refund of the IGST paid by the assessee pursuant to the Entry No. 10 of
the Notification No. 10/2017-IGST dated 28-6-2017 declared to be ultra
vires in the case of Mohit Minerals (P.) Ltd. (supra).
13. In view of the aforesaid, this writ-application succeeds and is hereby
allowed. The deficiency memo issued in the prescribed form RFD-03 vide
Nos.ZD240720008807J and ZD240720008830U both dated 17-7-2020 are
hereby quashed and set-aside.”
As per ratio, the amount collected by the Revenue without the authority of law is
not considered as tax collected by them and, therefore, Section 54 is not
applicable."
(b) In Aalidhra Texcraft (Supra):
“ 5. The petitioner for manufacturing the goods, various types
of textile machinery and equipment was procuring various
inputs, raw materials, capital goods including the supplies by
way of import during the period from May 2019 to March
2020. The petitioner imported various inputs and material by
filing 33 Bills of Entry which were cleared from the ports of
imports to the factory premises of the petitioners on payment
of import duties leviable including the integrated tax of Rs.
2,48,28,300/- which is admissible as Input Tax Credit (ITC).
Accordingly, the petitioner availed the ITC of the said
amount on the basis of the Bills of Entry and challans.
However, it appears that due to some wrong impression
created on the petitioner's part that an excess credit of
Rs.40,00,000/- was availed regarding the tax paid on

imported goods, which the petitioner paid on account of the
mismatch between the figures of ITC relatable to integrated
tax paid on imports, which was auto populated in Form of
GSTR-2A and monthly returns filed in Form GSTR-3B
returns. On account of some mismatch of some error in
system resulted in impression that excess credit of
Rs.40,00,000/- was reflected in GSTR-2A return. The
petitioner therefore deposited Rs.40,00,000/- on 13.11.2020
in Form DRC-03 believing bonafide that credit of
Rs.40,00,000/-was erroneously availed in excess of what was
legally admissible.
16. In view of above analysis made in the aforesaid
judgment which is squarely applicable to the facts of the same
case, more particularly when the petitioner has deposited
voluntarily the amount of Rs. 40,00,000/-, the same would not
be covered by the provisions of Section 54 of the GST Act and
the same is required to be refunded by the respondent
authorities as the same could not have been rejected on the
ground of limitation under Section 54(1) of the GST Act.
However, the petitioner will not be entitled to any interest on
such amount as the same was deposited voluntarily by
mistake and therefore, the respondents to refund the amount
of Rs. 40,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner.”
(c) Rajendra Narayan Mohanty (Supra): the same tax for the same
transactions had been discharged twice, once from the credit ledger and
again from the cash ledger, and the proper officer's own order recorded
both payments. The Court held:

“7. It is demonstrably manifest from aforesaid
discussions that retaining the amount paid in excess of tax
liability by the State is hit by inhibition enshrined in Article
265 of the Constitution of India. The finding of Joint
Commissioner of State Tax, CT&GST Circle, Cuttack-I East,
Cuttack in his Order dated 22nd October, 2025
unequivocally accepted that the petitioner has made an
excess payment of tax to the tune of Rs. 12,03,290/- (CGST of
Rs. 6,01,645/- + OGST of Rs. 6,01,645/-) as the deposits were
made once by way of utilising Credit Ledger and thereafter
under mistaken notion by using Cash Ledger. However,
discharge of tax liability having been accepted in the
proceeding under Section 74 of the GST Act vide Order dated
08.11.2024, there is no warrant for the authority concerned
to retain the amounts found to have been deposited twice and
reject the application for refund claimed by the petitioner.
7.1. The reason ascribed to by the Proper Officer in rejecting
the application taking into account Clause (d) of Paragraph
(2) of Explanation to Section 54 is apparently flimsy and
inapplicable to the fact-situation of present case. The
specious plea of the authority to reject the application for
refund that it was filed beyond period stipulated under
Section 54 of the GST Act pales into insignificance on the
anvil of Article 265 of the Constitution of India.
7.2. Under the above premise, refund claimed in respect of
tax paid erroneously or under mistaken notion cannot be
denied solely on the ground of limitation stipulated in Section
54 of the GST Act.

8.In the result, the writ petition is allowed. As a consequence
of above discussion, Order dated 22nd October, 2025 passed
by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, CT & GST Circle,
Cuttack-I East, Cuttack rejecting the application for refund
cannot be sustained and the same is hereby quashed and set
aside.”

79. Here the respondent's case is different of its kind. GST was chargeable on
the Respondent's services; it is not a case where the levy is exempt,
unconstitutional or otherwise unauthorized, as in Oriental Insurance and
Cosmol (Supra). The amounts were not deposited in FORM DRC-03
outside the return, as in Aalidhra (Supra), but paid as tax through GSTR-
3B under the return scheme. Nor has any authority found, or the Appellant/
Department conceded, that any identified amount was paid twice or
otherwise without authority of law, as in Rajendra Narayan Mohanty
(Supra). What the record shows is a difference between the tax declared in
GSTR-3B and in GSTR-1, which the Respondent attributes to corrections
made as revised data became available and to annual reconciliation. The
respondent has not pleaded when and how any mistake was discovered, or
that the excess arose from a mistake of law of the kind considered in the
decisions cited; its case in substance is one of reconciliation.
80. The respondent's own pleading also cuts against the plea. It contends that
Section 54(1) of the Act 2017 refers not only to refund of tax but also of
"any other amount paid by him". If that is so, the excess falls within Section
54(1) of the Act 2017 and is subject to its two-year period, with the relevant
date fixed by clause (h). It is not necessary for us to decide whether an
excess of that description is "tax" or "any other amount"; it suffices that the
Respondent, on whom lies the burden of bringing itself within an exception
to a statutory period of limitation, has not shown on this record that the

excess for July 2017 to February 2018 is an amount paid without authority
of law in the sense of the decisions relied upon. The claim was itself filed
and processed under Section 54 of the Act 2017 as an "excess payment of
tax" claim.
81. The appellant's reliance on Anam Electrical Manufacturing Co . (Supra) is
also apposite. The Hon’ble Supreme Court there applied the directions in
Mafatlal Industries (Supra) and held that;
“Pursuant to the directions given in Mafatlal Industries v. Union of
India [1996 (9) SCALE 457], the appeals/Special Leave Petitions
coming up for disposal shall be disposed of in terms of one or the other
of the clauses below:
(I) Where a refund application was filed by the
manufacturer/purchaser beyond the period prescribed
by the Central Excise Act/Customs Act in that behalf,
such petition must be held to be untenable in law. Even
if in any appeal, suit or writ petition, direction has been
given that the refund application shall be considered
without reference to the period of limitation prescribed
in the Central Excise Act/Customs Act- or that the
period of limitation shall be taken as three years- such
a direction of the Appellate Court/Civil Court/High
Court shall be deemed to be unsustainable in law and
such direction shall be set aside .”
The respondent having elected to apply under Section 54 by FORM GST RFD-
01 on a claim of "excess payment of tax", must also take the statutory period that
goes with it.

82. Accordingly, on the present record the alternative plea under Article 265 is
not made out, and the refund claim remains within the purview of barred
by Section 54(1) of the Act 2017.

83. Issue 4:
Whether there was any excess payment of tax for March 2018, and whether
Ground 3 of the Appellant/Department is contrary to the OIO?

84. The Ld. Authorized representative of the appellant submitted that the claim
for march 2018 was within time by virtue of the notifications, but that on
the respondent's own month-wise break-up the figure for the tax payment
of tax for GSTR-3B for the month of march 2018 was negative (Rs. -
2,42,846/- each under CGST and SGST), so that there was no excess
payment in that month and the refund sanctionable is nil. In its rejoinder it
added the working set out as above, arriving at a short payment of Rs.
4,85,692/- (Rs. 2,42,846/- each under CGST and SGST). The excess of
earlier months, being time-barred, cannot be imported into march 2018.
85. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the OIO itself records
an "excess payment" of Rs. 2,42,846/- each in March 2018, that the
appellant cannot contend that there was no excess payment in that month,
and that it cannot approbate and reprobate or improve its case beyond the
OIO. It further submitted that the excess of the earlier months was carried
forward into march 2018.
86. One of the grounds raised by the appellant is that there was no excess
payment in march 2018. The respondent answers that the OIO itself records
"excess payment" of Rs. 2,42,846/- each under CGST and SGST head for

that month, and that the appellant cannot travel beyond the OIO. The
answer overlooks the sign. The OIO records the figure as "Rs. -242846"
under each head and, in the very next sentence, concludes that "the eligible
refund to be sanctioned to party comes to NIL". A negative figure of excess
payment is a shortfall, not an excess; a positive excess of Rs. 2,42,846/-
could not yield a nil refund. The OIO was based on the respondent's own
month-wise break-up, and the respondent's own statement likewise shows
a negative figure for March 2018 (Rs. 2,01,867.99 short under each of
CGST and SGST). The figures differ but the sign and the conclusion are
the same. Accordingly, the ground 3 is entirely consistent with the OIO,
and there is no approbation and reprobation.
87. The respondent's remaining answer is that the excess of the earlier months
was carried forward into march 2018. That depends on the premise,
rejected under Issue 1, that the earlier months' excess is to be treated as a
March 2018 claim. The relevant date of each payment remains the date of
that payment of tax. If the earlier months' claims are time-barred, they
cannot be brought into the claim for March 2018 by way of carry-forward.
88. The claim for march 2018 is thus within time, but on the respondent's own
figures there is no excess payment for that month and no refund is
sanctionable. The appellate authority did not deal with this finding at all.
89. For the reasons above, we hold and direct as follows:
(i) The refund claim of Rs. 1,35,34,594/- is not a single composite claim
for limitation. The relevant date for the excess, if any, paid with each monthly
GSTR-3B is the date of filing of that GSTR-3B under clause (h) of the
Explanation to Section 54 of the Act 2017, and limitation is to be examined
month-wise.
(ii) The claims for July 2017 to February 2018 became time-barred with
regard to time limits under notification 35/2020 as amended by notification No.

55/2020-central Tax. The respondent has not on this record established its
alternative plea under Article 265 of the Constitution.
(iii) The claims for July 2017 to January 2018 had expired before the
commencement of the exclusion period (under notification No. 13/2022-central
Tax dated 05.07.2022, and the judgment dated 10.01.2022 of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Suo Motu Writ
Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020) and are not saved thereby. They remain barred under
Section 54(1) of the Act 2017. However, the respondent is entitled to the refund
for the month of February 2018 by virtue of notification No. 13/2022-Central Tax
which shall be quantified after segregating it from the said consolidated claim and
be granted to the respondent in accordance with law.
(iv) The claim for March 2018 is within time by virtue of Notification
35/2020 as amended by notification No. 55/2020-central Tax, but on the
respondent's own month-wise figures, there was no excess payment for that
month and the refund sanctionable is nil.
(v) The OIA is set aside to the extent discussed herein above.
No order as to costs.



90. Before parting with the matter, we consider it appropriate to place on
record our sincere appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Sh.
Rahul Kumar, Ld. Deputy Commissioner on behalf of appellant and Sh.
Shiva Kumar G, learned counsel along with Sh. Shree Nath R, Ld. CA for
the respondent, which considerably facilitated this bench in objectively

examining and appreciating the issues involved in their proper legal
perspective.

(Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal)
Vice President/Judicial Member



(Rajiv Kapoor)
Technical Member (Centre)

Date: 05/11/2026
Place: New Delhi