GST Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata20 August 2026

Principal Commissioner Of CGST v. Agarwala’s Bitumex (P.) Ltd

For assessee

APL NO. 14 (KLK) OF 2026

The ruling in brief

Refund of accumulated ITC claimed on export of goods could not be denied merely on basis of absence of toll plaza movements where goods were supplied under Bill To Ship To model and E way Bills, bilty copies, shipping bills, EGM details, transporter's certificate and bank statements established transportation and export; toll plaza receipts were not mandatory documents

Provisions considered

Section 16, read with section 54, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/ West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 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 Lucknow28 Sept 2026

For assessee

Satyendra Singh v. L and T Technology Services Ltd

Where assessee availed ITC on supplies from a vendor whose GST registration was retrospectively cancelled and limited ITC was allowed by appellate authority based on specific invoice entries and subsequent portal amendments, since no evidence established that supplies were not received or invoices were fictitious, thus in absence of legal or factual infirmity appeal against first appellate order was to be dismissed

CGST S.16

Kerala High Court17 Sept 2026

For assessee

PBS Traders v. Assistant State Tax Officer

Where petitioner filed returns for months September 2018 to March 2019 within extended deadline permitted by Section 16(5), denial of Input Tax Credit solely on ground of limitation under Section 16(4) was unsustainable, and petitioner remained entitled to ITC subject to fulfilling other conditions, as interest liability for belated payment was not contested in proceedings

Principal Commissioner Of CGST v. Agarwala’s Bitumex (P.) Ltd

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Principal Commissioner Of CGST v. Agarwala’s Bitumex (P.) Ltd

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

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

Satyendra Singh v. L and T Technology Services Ltd

PBS Traders v. Assistant State Tax Officer

Read the full analysis