JUDGMENT : (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA) 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hiren J. Trivedi for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Ayaan A. Patel for the respondents. 2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Ayaan Patel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent State. 3. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, orders or directions to quash and set aside impugned order dated 13/20.10.2021 passed by learned Commissioner (Appeals), GST & Central Excise, Rajkot (at Annexxure-F) and order dated 05.05.2021 passed by Assistant Commissioner, Central GST Division-II, Morbi (at Annexure-E); (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, orders or directions to the respondent authorities to immediately sanction the refund of Rs. 36,30,286/- filed vide application dated 25.03.2021 filed in form GST RFD-01A filed bearing Application Reference Number AA2403210917675; at ANN B (C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pay interest @ 9% to the petitioner herein on the amount of refund from the date of filing the refund application till the date on which the amount of refund is paid to the petitioner herein, as the same is arbitrarily and illegally withheld by the respondent authorities: D) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant ex-parte, ad interim order in favour of the petitioner herein in terms of prayer clause 'A' and 'B' hereinabove; (E) Such further relief(s) as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in the interest of justice for which act of kindness your Petitioners shall forever pray.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a global hi-tech manufacturer of premium ceramics lifestyle solution and is engaged in the business of manufacture and export of tiles. The petitioner avails input tax credit on various inputs like coal. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner exports without payment of duty and is eligible to claim refund of accumulated input tax credit on cess against the export of goods without payment of duty. 5. The petitioner avails input tax credit on various inputs like coal. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner exports without payment of duty and is eligible to claim refund of accumulated input tax credit on cess against the export of goods without payment of duty. 5. As per section 54(3)(i) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (For short “the Act”), the petitioner company claimed the refund of input tax credit accumulated by filing refund application in Form RFD- 01 on 25.03.2021 for the period between April 2018 to January, 2019 aggregating to Rs.36,30,286/- as per Rule 89(1) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 (For short “the Rules”). 6. The petitioner company received show cause notice dated 25.03.2021 asking the petitioner company to show cause why the refund claim of the petitioner should not be rejected as time barred. 7. Petitioner company filed a detailed submission against the show cause notice dated 10.04.2021 and stated that for the purpose of refund of unutilised input tax credit in case of zero-rated supplies, Clause(e) of Explanation 2 to section 54 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 would be applicable. 8. The application of the petitioner company for refund came to be rejected by the respondents vide order dated 05.05.2021. 9. Being aggrieved by such rejection of refund application, the petitioner preferred an appeal reiterating its submissions made by it in response to the show cause notice. 10. The Appellate Commissioner rejected the appeal of the petitioner observing that as per section 54(1) read with provisions of section 54(3)(i) and Explanation 2(a) of section 54 of the Act, the refund of unutilised input tax credit on account of export of goods without payment of tax is to be filed within two years from the date as determined under Explanation 2(a) of section 54 of the Act. The Appellate Commissioner also held that time limit as per clause(e) of Explanation 2 to section 54 after its amendment with effect from 01.02.2019 would govern the refund application filed by the petitioner company. 11. The Appellate Commissioner also held that time limit as per clause(e) of Explanation 2 to section 54 after its amendment with effect from 01.02.2019 would govern the refund application filed by the petitioner company. 11. It is the case of the petitioner that vide Notification No.13/2022-Central Tax dated 05.07.2022 issued by the Central Government in exercise of powers under section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 the period from the 01.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for computation of period of limitation for filing refund application under section 54 or section 55 of the said Act was excluded. 12. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities of not releasing/sanctioning the refund of the petitioner company, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of present petition. 13. Both the learned advocates are in addendum that benefits of Notification No.13/2022-Central Tax dated 05.07.2022 would be applicable to the facts of the case. Learned advocate Mr. Trivedi invited the attention of the Court to the following averments made in affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondents: “11. With respect to the case of the petitioner, the due date for filing refund claim in view of the aforementioned Notification is as under: Sr. No. Refund for month of Due date (last date of filling refund application as per Notif.13/2022 1 April- 2018 22-05- 2022 2 May- 2018 20-06- 2022 3 June- 2018 20-07- 2022 4 July- 2018 24-08- 2022 5 Aug- 2018 20-09- 2022 6 Sep- 2018 25-10- 2022 7 Oct- 2018 20-11- 2022 8 Nov- 2018 20-12- 2022 9 Dec- 2018 20-01- 2023 10. Jan- 2018 22-02- 2023 12. From the above table, it transpires that petitioner was eligible for benefit of extended period granted vide Notification No.13/2022 – Central Tax dated 05.07.2022, whereby relaxation of COVID period from 01.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was eligible for the period from June-2018 to Jan-2019. However, the notification dated 05.07.2022 was not in existence at the time of issuance of the impugned orders.” 14. In view of above broad consensus between the parties, the petition is allowed by directing the respondents to grant the benefit of Notification No.13/2022-Central Tax dated 05.07.2022 whereby the relaxation of Covid period from 01.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was eligible for period from April 2018 to January, 2019. In view of above broad consensus between the parties, the petition is allowed by directing the respondents to grant the benefit of Notification No.13/2022-Central Tax dated 05.07.2022 whereby the relaxation of Covid period from 01.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was eligible for period from April 2018 to January, 2019. It appears that notification dated 05.07.2022 was not available at the relevant time when the impugned orders were passed and therefore, benefits of the same were not given to the petitioner. 15. Considering the above facts, the petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 13/20.10.2021 is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently order dated 05.05.2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central GST Division-II, Morbi also stands set aside. 16. Petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.