Case laws · TaxKatha

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 Chandigarh24 Sept 2026

For assessee

Shruti Bansal v. Solitaire Pharmacia (P.) Ltd

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 Ranchi23 Sept 2026

For assessee

Principal Commissioner of CGST & CX v. Shivam Iron & Steel Co. Ltd

Reversal of ITC (Cess) relating to earlier periods could not be deducted from Net ITC for current refund period under Rule 89(4); “input tax credit availed” would refer to credit actually availed during current period, and para 43(c) of Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST could not override statute, hence, refund was properly computed

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

GSTAT Lucknow17 Sept 2026

For assessee

Ajit Kumar Minz v. B.L. Agro Industries Ltd

Where manufacturer of edible oils re-filed differential ITC refund claims for same periods after remand due to changes in refund formula and satisfied substantive and procedural requirements under Section 54 and Rule 89, technically rejected supplementary claims were maintainable if within limitation, and technical objections could not override substantive entitlement, thus, appellate authority's grant of refund required no interference

GSTAT Kolkata10 Sept 2026

For assessee

Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise v. HP Cotton Casuals (P.) Ltd

Merely because inputs and outputs shared same HSN classification and manufacturing status was unverified, refund of accumulated ITC under an inverted duty structure could not be denied; in view of law that GST is levied on supply rather than manufacture, refund of accumulated credit from higher rated taxed inputs was legitimate GST: Where supplier of wearing apparel at 5 percent using inputs taxed at 5, 12 or 18 percent claimed refund for accumulated ITC under inverted duty structure, and there was no reduction of GST rate for inputs or outputs during relevant period, para 3.2 of Circular No. 135/05/2020-GST was inapplicable and refund could not be denied on basis of such circular; statutory refund formula would prevail. GST: Where respondent claimed refund of accumulated ITC on apparel supplies due to inverted duty structure for specific periods, and authorities verified period-wise computation as per Rule 89(5), absence of annual turnover figures in determination and compliance with Rule 89(5) meant refunds were correctly allowed and period- wise computation as required was not infringed. GST: Where refunds were claimed for inverted duty structure on apparel supplies and revenue alleged inclusion of ineligible ITC and verification infirmities, but appellate authority conducted detailed document-wise reconciliation and found claims in order, revenue’s failure to produce contrary evidence meant refund orders were sustained and appeals were dismissed as lacking merit

GSTAT Kolkata3 Sept 2026

For assessee

Pr. Commissioner CGST & CX v. North Bengal Tea & Allied

Where assessee supplied packaged tea taxed at 5 percent using packing materials taxed at 12 percent or 18 percent, resulting in ITC accumulation, refund of ITC under inverted duty structure was allowable since statutory provisions and CBIC circular recognised packing materials as eligible inputs, and refund could not be denied merely because principal input and output attracted identical tax rate. GST: Where respondent supplied packaged tea using bulk tea both taxed at 5 percent and packing materials taxed at 12 or 18 percent, and claimed refund of accumulated ITC under inverted duty structure, Circular 135/5/2020 was inapplicable as there was no change in GST rate on same goods, and statutory refund entitlement could not be curtailed by such circular

GSTAT Kolkata20 Aug 2026

For assessee

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

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

GSTAT New Delhi4 Jun 2026

For revenue

Dow Chemical International (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of State Tax

Where assessee chemical manufacturer engaged Dow Europe GmbH under procurement agreement for vendor identification and negotiation support, and Dow Europe acted independently without authority to bind assessee, services did not qualify as intermediary but as import of services, so place of supply remained in India, making IGST payable under reverse charge with refund claim rightly rejected. GST: Where assessee paid IGST under reverse charge on import of services, reversed related ITC and sought refund, in absence of export and with place of supply being in India, statutory conditions for refund were not met, and thus assessee had no entitlement to refund for the relevant period, warranting dismissal of appeals challenging rejection of refund claims

Every ruling, in plain sight.