GST Refund: No Limitation Under Section 54(1) for Wrongly Deposited Tax for GSTR 2A-3B Mismatch:

High Court Says Voluntary Tax Paid by Mistake Not Time-Barred; Refund Allowed. Unjust Enrichment Barred: High Court Allows Refund of Erroneous GST High Court Says Voluntary Tax Paid by Mistake Not Time-Barred; Refund Allowed.
Unjust Enrichment Barred: High Court Allows Refund of Erroneous GST

GST Refund: No Limitation Under Section 54(1) for Wrongly Deposited Tax for GSTR 2A-3B Mismatch
The assessee, being a manufacturer of textile machinery, mistakenly deposited Rs. 40 lakhs through Form DRC-03 in November 2020 due to a system-generated mismatch between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B, which incorrectly suggested excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims. In March 2024, an audit confirmed that there was no actual tax liability. The company then applied for a refund of the amount paid. However, the tax authorities denied the refund request, citing the two-year limitation period prescribed under Section 54(1) of the CGST Act. Aggrieved by the rejection of the claim for refund, the assessee filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court seeking an explanation.
Issue Raised: Whether voluntary tax paid by mistake, without any demand or assessment, is subject to the two-year limitation period prescribed under Section 54(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.
High Court’s Decision: The Court ruled in favor of the assessee, referring to Joshi Technologies International and Gujarat State Police Housing Corp., and held that such refund claims fall outside the regular limitation and the State cannot unjustly enrich itself under Article 26. The Court explained that the two-year limitation period under Section 54(1) of the CGST Act did not apply because the amount was a mistaken deposit rather than a statutory tax payment. The Court underlined that money paid in error must be returned because keeping such sums without legal justification would be unconstitutional, citing Article 265 of the Constitution and pertinent case law. Therefore, the denial or rejection order was quashed, and the department was directed to refund Rs. 40,00,000 with applicable interest.
About Author

Meetu Kumari
Content Manager
Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2166My Recent Articles
- ITAT Condones 648-Day Delay After Assessee Lost Family During COVID, Restores AppealPremium
- ITAT Quashes Rs 2 Crore Penalty as Time-Barred; Limitation Starts from AO’s Reference, Not Show-Cause NoticePremium
- ITAT Remands Appeal After Finding NFAC Ignored 89 Pages of Evidence on Cash Deposits and Flat Improvement CostPremium
- ITAT Grants Fresh Opportunity in Rs 2.63 Crore Foreign Bank Credit Addition CasePremium
- ITAT Deletes Section 68 Addition on Explained Demonetisation Cash DepositsPremium
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Recent Posts

All Posts








