Gujarat High Court Allows Refund Ordered in Appeal Despite Limitation — Treats Late Upload of APL-04 as Relevant Date in Peculiar Facts

While holding that limitation ordinarily runs from physical communication of the appellate order, the Court refused to let a procedural delay defeat a refund that the Appellate Authority had already directed.

The Gujarat High Court has directed refund of Rs. 5,41,032 deposited during a 2019 detention, with interest at 6%, even though the refund application was filed more than two years after the appellate order was physically handed over to the taxpayer [Panila Chem Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.].

The bench of Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati noted that the Appellate Authority set aside the Section 129 demand on 28.02.2022, finding the e-way bill active and no intent to evade, and directed refund of the deposit. A physical copy reached the petitioners on 08.03.2022, but the summary in Form GST APL-04 was uploaded on the portal only on 03.06.2024, after departmental instructions to upload manually passed orders. The refund application filed the next day was rejected as time-barred.

On the law, the Court agreed with the revenue that under Explanation 2(d) to Section 54 the relevant date is the date of communication of the appellate order, namely 08.03.2022. APL-04 is only a summary, and neither Rule 89 nor Form RFD-01 requires a taxpayer to wait for its upload before claiming refund.

However, invoking Articles 265 and 300A and the Supreme Court’s observation in Sambhaji v. Gangabai that procedure is “the handmaid and not the mistress” of justice, the Court held that retaining the amount would indirectly revive a demand already set aside. It observed that authorities should take steps to implement appellate orders, including intimating the taxpayer to claim refund.

Treating 03.06.2024 as the relevant date for this case alone, the Court quashed the rejection orders and directed refund within 12 weeks with interest at 6% from 15.08.2024, failing which interest at 9% would apply. Practitioners should note that the general holding on the relevant date favours the revenue; the relief turned on the peculiar facts.

2026-juristway.com-3121-HC(Gujarat)-GST