Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 05 DECEMBER 2023

Refund – Time Limit Under Section 54(1) Is Not Mandatory

Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan
Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan
Contributor
Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan

Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan

Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan (LKS) is a premier full-service Indian law firm specializing in areas...

View firm profile
Explore more from Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan

Noting that the term used in Section 54(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 is 'may', the Madras High Court has observed that the time limit fixed under Section 54(1) is directory in nature and is not mandatory.

IndiaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan Attorneys
Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan Attorneys
Author LinkedIn connections

Noting that the term used in Section 54(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 is 'may', the Madras High Court has observed that the time limit fixed under Section 54(1) is directory in nature and is not mandatory. According to the Court, it is not mandatory that the refund application must be made within two years, and in appropriate cases, refund application can be made even beyond two years.

The Madras High Court gave the above observations in a dispute where the refund of IGST was denied in case of supply to SEZ unit, as the supporting document (endorsement from Authorised officer) was furnished at the time of personal hearing only and not filed along with refund application.

The Court in Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner was of the view that the delay in filing the supporting document at the time of filing of reply/personal hearing would only extend the time limit to pass an order under Section 54(7).

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from