High Court of Gujarat29 June 2026

Dilip Babubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat

For assessee

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21685 OF 2019

The ruling in brief

Where assessee transitioned pre-GST VAT credit to electronic credit ledger on introduction of GST regime, refund claim under Section 54(3) for such transitioned credit was impermissible due to statutory bar under second proviso to Section 142(3), and only regular GST-period ITC was eligible for refund; However, transitional VAT credit rejected should be re- credited in ECL of GST regime for future utilization under Section 140

Provisions considered

Section 54, read with sections 49, 140 and 142 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Rule 93 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 Agra24 Sept 2026

For revenue

Jupiter Buildtech (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of State Tax

Where real estate developer refunded service tax received on advances for cancelled bookings after GST transition and treated refunded tax as ITC to adjust liability, service tax paid before appointed date was not input tax under GST, ITC was not admissible, and refund could only be claimed under transitional provisions of existing law, not by unilateral credit in electronic ledger

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

Dilip Babubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Dilip Babubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

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

Jupiter Buildtech (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of State Tax

Shruti Bansal v. Solitaire Pharmacia (P.) Ltd

Read the full analysis