Case Title: Piramal Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of India & Others
Court: High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench
Petition Nos.: WP Nos. 25311, 25312, 25313 & 27580 of 2022
Category: Refund of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017
Date of Judgment: 25 July 2025
Relevant Sections: Section 54(3), Section 107(2), (3) of the CGST Act, 2017; Rule 89(4B) of CGST Rules, 2017
Related Notifications/Circulars: Notification No. 02/2019-CT dated 29.01.2019; Circular No.157/13/2021-GST; Notification No.13/2020-CT dated 05.07.2022
Facts (Paras 2–4):
Piramal Enterprises Ltd., engaged in the manufacture and export of goods, paid CGST/SGST/IGST on inputs and input services and claimed refund of accumulated ITC under Section 54(3) of the CGST Act read with Rule 89(4B). The refund claims for January to March 2018 were filed online between April 2018 and July 2019 and revised on 21.05.2020. The Joint Commissioner (Appeals) sanctioned a refund for March 2018 but later reviewed his own order, issuing a show-cause notice. Subsequently, by order dated 18.02.2021, the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claims, holding them time-barred under Notification No.02/2019-CT dated 29.01.2019.
Questions before the Court (Paras 2 & 5):
Whether the refund claims filed and revised during the pandemic period were time-barred, or whether they were eligible for extension of limitation under the Supreme Court’s suo motu order in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (Suo Motu W.P. (C) No.3/2020) and the corresponding CBIC Circular No.157/13/2021-GST and Notification No.13/2020-CT dated 05.07.2022.
Observations (Paras 5–9):
The Court noted that the Union and departmental respondents sought remand of the matter for re-examination in view of the Supreme Court’s suo motu order and CBIC’s subsequent clarifications extending limitation during COVID-19. The petitioner also raised no objection to remand. The Court found it appropriate that all three refund-related writs, arising from a common order, be reconsidered together rather than individually. It emphasized that the applicability of the extended limitation under the apex court’s directions must be examined afresh by the appellate authority.
Judgment (Paras 9–14):
The Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside the impugned orders dated 18.02.2021, 28.10.2020, and 27.01.2021, passed by the appellate and reviewing authorities. All four writ petitions were partly allowed, and the matters were remanded to the First Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, keeping in mind the Supreme Court’s extension of limitation and CBIC’s circulars. The Court clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the refund claims.
Summary of Cases Referred:
| Case | Citation / Reference | Issue | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation | Suo Motu W.P. (C) No.3/2020 | COVID-19 limitation extension | Periods during COVID-19 excluded from limitation; applicable to refund and appeal filings under GST |
| Circular No.157/13/2021-GST | Dated 20.07.2021 | Implementation of Supreme Court orders | Clarified that limitation extensions apply to refund applications |
| Notification No.13/2020-CT | Dated 05.07.2022 | Effect of extension of time limits | Implemented the Supreme Court order for GST proceedings |
Between Fine Lines:
The ruling reinforces that refund claims impacted by COVID-19 are entitled to the benefit of the Supreme Court’s extended limitation directions. It offers relief to exporters and manufacturers whose refund applications were rejected merely on the ground of delay. The remand ensures that the appellate authority must reconsider such claims with due regard to judicial extensions, promoting equitable treatment under GST.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
