Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 --- Refund —- The petitioner challenged an Appeal order dated 25.11.2021, whereby the petitioner’s appeal against an order dated 29.04.2020 was rejected. The petitioner is aggrieved by the denial of his request for refund of tax of Rs. 2,63,98,462/-, which was paid in excess for the month of December, 2017. The petitioner submitted that there was an error on its part in reporting the sales for the aforesaid month, as the petitioner received a letter dated 22.02.2018 from the Department of Telecommunications clarifying that the amount of Rs. 104,65,11,628/- paid was inclusive of taxes. Therefore, the calculation of GST was erroneous. The petitioner was issued deficiency memo which the petitioner had replied. But the claim was rejected as time barred. Further, the order indicated that the clarification submitted by the petitioner was treated as the application for refund. The court observed that the petitioner had filed its online application for refund on 17.01.2020 and the same was within the period of limitation as stipulated under Section 54. If the application filed is not deficient in material particulars, it cannot be treated as non est. If it is accompanied by the “documentary evidences” as mentioned in Rule 89(2) of the Rules, it cannot be ignored for the purposes of limitation. The limitation would necessarily stop on filing the said application. It is erroneous to assume that the application, which is accompanied by the documents as specified under Rule 89(2), is required to be treated as complete only after the taxpayer furnishes the clarification of further documents as may be required by the proper officer and that too from the date such clarification is issued.

Held that:- The Hon’ble Court  set aside the orders and remanded the matter to the  Adjudicating Authority to consider afresh in the light of the observations made by this Court.