GSTAT Chandigarh
For assessee
Case-law directory
Every ruling, in plain sight.
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
Case-law directory
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
6 rulings found
GSTAT Chandigarh
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 Ranchi
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 Ranchi
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 Lucknow
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 Kolkata
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 Kolkata
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