Case Details: Suraj Mangar Versus Assistant Commissioner of West Bengal State Tax (2025) 33 Centax 70 (Cal.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar, JJ.
- S/Shri Ankit Kanodia, Ms. Megha Agarwal and Abhilash Mittal for the Appellant
- S/Shri Subir Kumar Saha, Ld. AGP, Ms. Rima Sarkar and Hirak Barman for the Respondent
Facts of the Case
The applicant, registered under the CGST Act and the West Bengal GST Act, filed a refund application for a specified period, which was rejected by the proper officer. The applicant challenged the rejection order on the ground that it had been passed beyond the stipulated period of sixty days prescribed for processing a refund application. The principal legal question raised was whether the sixty-day time limit prescribed for the proper officer to issue an order under sub-section (5) of Section 54 was mandatory or directory. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that sub-section (7) of Section 54 of the CGST Act and the West Bengal GST Act mandates the proper officer to issue an order under sub-section (5) within sixty days from the date of receipt of a complete refund application, and that the time limit is mandatory in nature. It found that delays in issuing acknowledgement under Rule 90(2), in serving the show cause notice beyond fifteen days after acknowledgement, and in fixing the date for reply beyond the statutory period, left no scope for the officer to pass an order within the mandated sixty-day period. The Court observed that while the authority treated Rule 92 as mandatory against the applicant, it disregarded the mandatory nature of Section 54(7) in favour of the Department, amounting to double standards. Holding that the impugned order rejecting the refund was vitiated due to non-compliance with the statutory timeline, the Court set aside the order and directed the Department to refund the amount claimed along with interest, thereby affirming that breach of the sixty-day limit under Section 54(7) invalidates refund adjudication.
List Of Case Cited
- ACC Ltd. v. Asstt. Commissioner CT LTU — [2020] 116 taxmann.com 392 (Telangana) — Referred [Para 11]
- Balaji Exim v. Commissioner, CGST — 2023 (73) G.S.T.L. 350/(2023) 5 Centax 41 (Del.) — Referred [Para 12]
- Duakem Pharma (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Revenue — 2025 (98) G.S.T.L. 37/(2025) 29 Centax 387 (Cal.) — Referred [Para 13]
- G. S. Industries v. Commissioner Central GST — 2023 (75) G.S.T.L. 309/(2023) 7 Centax 87 (Del.) — Referred [Para 9]
- Jian International v. Commissioner of Delhi GST — [2020] 117 taxmann.com 968/80 GST 828/39 G.S.T.L. 385 (Delhi) — Referred [Para 5]
- M.D. Securities (P.) Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer Avato — [2025] 175 taxmann.com 55 (Delhi) — Referred [Para 5]
- Ramlala v. State of U.P. — [Writ C No. 31059 of 2023, dated 21-11-2023] — Referred [Para 13]
- Smartadmedia v. Commissioner of Delhi GST — (2024) 19 Centax 106 (Del.) — Referred [Para 4]
- Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd. — [2022] 140 taxmann.com 252 (SC) — Referred [Para 6]
