Supreme Court of India21 September 2026

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

For revenue

SLP APPEAL (C) NO(S). 23802 & 23803 OF 2025

The ruling in brief

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

Provisions considered

Section 54, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

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

Delhi High Court25 Sept 2026

For revenue

Jaiwanti v. Union of India

Where SCN and penalty proceedings were initiated against legal representative of deceased alleged to have fraudulently availed ITC and IGST refunds, in view of fact that section 93 permitted post-death determination of tax, interest and penalty liability accruing to extent of deceased's estate, investigation and recovery actions were jurisdictionally valid against legal heirs. GST: Where department, after assessee's death, proceeded against legal representative for tax penalty based on alleged fraudulent refunds by deceased, while provisions of section 93(1)(b) was challenged under Article 14 as arbitrary and denying defence, since liability was limited to estate of deceased, representative was not deemed to be a wrongdoer, particularly when effective hearing and appeal safeguards existed; thus, constitutional challenge to Section 93(1)(b) was untenable and was rejected. GST: Amount seized during search could not be retained indefinitely merely on alleged voluntary deposit; Department was required to establish lawful basis for retention/appropriation, furnish complete account of principal and FD interest, and release any amount lacking statutory basis with interest actually earned after reasoned adjudication

GSTAT Raipur24 Sept 2026

For revenue

Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner State Tax Chhatisgarh

Where manufacturer claimed refund of unutilised ITC due to inverted duty structure and was sanctioned amount exceeding entitlement under Section 54 read with Rule 89(5), such payment qualified as refund and, if in excess, constituted an 'erroneous refund' recoverable under Section 73, without exclusion based on ITC origin, as confirmed by subsequent rule and circular. GST: Where assessee received refund on inverted-duty structure via RFD-06 order and department did not appeal or seek revision, initiation of recovery proceedings for erroneous refund under Section 73 was permissible as Section 73 operates independently with its own notice and limitation, and non-invocation of appeal or revision mechanisms does not bar such recovery action. GST: Where appellant received erroneous refund of Rs. 90.35 lakhs on inverted-duty structure and paid back principal amount during recovery proceedings without paying interest, interest under Section 50 at 18 percent per annum for delayed period was legally leviable as interest is compensatory, and mere payment of principal did not conclude liability or proceedings under Section 73

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

Related rulings

Delhi High Court25 Sept 2026

For revenue

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

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

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

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Jaiwanti v. Union of India

Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner State Tax Chhatisgarh

Shruti Bansal v. Solitaire Pharmacia (P.) Ltd

Read the full analysis