High Court of Gujarat16 July 2026

Anas Enterprise v. Union of India

For assessee

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11064 OF 2025

The ruling in brief

Where taxpayer deposited tax in electronic cash ledger before due dates for certain months but filed GSTR-3B belatedly, and department rejected refund of excess interest by applying Rule 88B prospectively while ignoring Arya Cotton ratio that interest under section 50 runs only till tax deposit, such rejection reflected selective denial and was unsustainable, mandating refund of excess interest deposited by petitioner along with statutory interest

Provisions considered

Section 54, read with section 50, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Rule 88B of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017/Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017

This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.

The ruling in brief

Related rulings

Supreme Court21 Sept 2026

For revenue

Matrix Cellular (international) Services (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner, State Tax, Delhi

SLP dismissed against review petition of High Court holding that where assessee withdrew refund application after issuance of deficiency memo and later sought interest for that disputed period in review petition on ground of error apparent, as no error or mistake was found in earlier judgment denying interest for that period, review petition was not maintainable and not considered on merits

GSTAT Chandigarh24 Sept 2026

For assessee

Shruti Bansal v. Solitaire Pharmacia (P.) Ltd

Where exporter claimed refund of unutilised ITC for period based on invoices issued for export supplies under bond/LUT, turnover for refund was determined by invoice date within relevant period, not actual export date, so denial on ground of subsequent export was unwarranted when export stood established and invoices fell in period, making refund allowable. GST: Where exporter claimed refund of unutilised ITC for export without payment of tax and department alleged minor inclusion of ineligible credits in Net ITC computation under rule 89(4), such ineligible ITC did not materially impact maximum refund, which remained higher than amount sanctioned, so refund grant required no disturbance and departmental appeal was dismissed

GSTAT Ranchi23 Sept 2026

For assessee

Pramod Chandan Surin v. Shivam Iron & Steel Co. Ltd

Where manufacturer-exporter of mild steel billets exported goods under LUT without payment of tax causing accumulation of Cess ITC, refund of Net ITC must reflect credit availed and attributable to refund period only, so reversal of earlier period credit subsequently booked could not reduce Net ITC for relevant period, and departmental circular could not override statutory formula

Anas Enterprise v. Union of India

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Anas Enterprise v. Union of India

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Matrix Cellular (international) Services (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner, State Tax, Delhi

Shruti Bansal v. Solitaire Pharmacia (P.) Ltd

Pramod Chandan Surin v. Shivam Iron & Steel Co. Ltd

Read the full analysis