1. The petitioner’s request for refund for the period from February 2018 to April 2018, is rejected by the third respondent – the Assistant Commissioner of Central Taxes - on the ground of limitation, and the third respondent’s order in this regard reads as under:

“11. I have carefully gone through the subject refund claim along with the documents enclosed, relevant statutory provisions and the submissions made by the claimants in reply to the show cause notice.

The facts of the case already mentioned in detail in the pre paras and therefore I do not wish to repeat the same for sake of brevity. The subject claim before me is filed consequent to the Apex Court's decision on 19.5.2022. The subject claim is related to the IGST paid for the period March 2018. This being the case, the relevant date has to be determined under Sec. 54(14)(2)(h) as under-

(2) "relevant date" means-

(h) in any other case, the date of payment of tax.

Further, even after exclusion of period from 1st day of March, 2020 to the 28th day of February, 2022 for computation of period of limitation for filing refund application under section 54 or section 55 of the said Act,  as provided in the Para 1(iii) of Notification 13/2022-CT dated 5th July, 2022, it is clear that the subject claim is filed after expiry of 2 years from the relevant date. Therefore, I arrive at the conclusion that the claim is hit by limitation of time.”

2. Sri. Ravi Raghavan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that indeed the Notification dated 15.07.2022 in No.13/2022-CT excludes the period between 01.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for computing limitation even for the purposes of refund application under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short, ‘the CGST Act’). However, this Notification must be read necessarily in conjunction with the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation 2022 (56) G.S.T.L. 385 (S.C.) where, apart from providing for exclusion during such period, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also clarified that:

If the limitation expires during the aforesaid period, the limitation period shall be ninety [90] days from 01.03.2022, and in the event, the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than ninety [90] days, that longer period shall apply.

3. Sri. Ravi Raghavan submits that the third respondent has not considered the question of limitation in the light of this clarification and if it is considered, there cannot be any dispute that the petitioner’s application for refund would be within the permissible ninety [90] days. Ms. Preetha M., the learned counsel for the contesting respondents, does not dispute this material factual assertion but contends that the petitioner, even when the application is rejected on the ground of limitation, can avail alternative remedy.

4. It is trite that alternative remedy itself is no reason to reject a writ petition when it can be shown that the impugned orders are ex facie contrary to the settled propositions, including positive directions by the higher Courts. If it is undisputed that the limitation for the petitioner’s subject refund applications expired during the period between 01.03.2020 and 28.02.2022, the petitioner would be entitled for an extended limitation of ninety [90] days from 01.03.2022 and the applications are within this time, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order sustained.

For the foregoing, the petition is allowed quashing the impugned orders dated 20.07.2022 in Nos.44/2022, 45/2022 and 46/2022 (Annexures – A, A-1 and A-2) by the third respondent and the petitioner’s refund applications are restored for reconsideration. The petitioner shall appear before the respondents without further notice on 14.02.2023.