Madras High Court
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.
28 rulings found
Madras High Court
Where SEZ Unit's refund claim for unutilized input tax credit under Section 54 read with Rule 89 and Section 16 was rejected on ground refund provisions applied only to suppliers to SEZ, Rule 89(1) did not restrict such claims to suppliers, and SEZ Unit is eligible to claim refund of unutilized ITC in accordance with law
Karnataka High Court
Where assessee's refund of tax paid on export of services was rejected under Rule 96, since Rule 96(10) had been omitted without any saving or sunset clause, ongoing restriction could not be maintained and refund could not be denied in view of Supreme Court's decision that proceedings under an omitted rule cannot continue in absence of any saving provision
Telangana High Court
Where petitioner company paid and reversed ITC under protest pursuant to adjudicating authority's demand, but appellate authority subsequently set aside original order and allowed appeal, refund officer could not reject refund claim on grounds of non-finality or proposed departmental appeal, as appellate order remained operative and binding until stayed or modified, making refund rejection unsustainable GST: Where petitioner, after demand against it was set aside in entirety on appeal, sought refund of amounts paid by filing RFD-01 with supporting documents, refund authority wrongly rejected refund citing lack of explicit refund direction, as statutory principles mandated consequential refund whenever original demand is quashed, requiring refund authority to process claim on merits under refund mechanism without re-examining demand issues GST: Where refund claim was rejected solely because of prospective departmental appeal and capitalization entries when no appeal was pending as on refund date, there was no hearing and no formed Commissioner opinion on adverse impact due to malfeasance or fraud, rejection was unsustainable since statutory prerequisites for withholding refund were not met and subsequent appeal did not cure these deficiencies
Delhi High Court
Where assessee obtained refund of pre-deposit made during demand proceedings after partial appellate relief and sought interest on delayed refund, authorities had no discretion to deny statutory interest under Section 56 once refund was sanctioned, so liability to pay such interest stood triggered and authorities were obliged to quantify and release due interest
Gujarat High Court
Where restriction in Rule 96(10) governing IGST refund on exports was omitted without a saving clause and both the SCN and consequential order were issued after such omission, restriction could not survive for pending or subsequent proceedings and related actions were to be quashed in alignment with Goodluck India Ltd. ruling
Madras High Court
Where refund application was treated as time barred and rejected by issuance of deficiency memo at acknowledgement stage under Rule 90(3), since limitation is not a curable deficiency, proposed rejection required show cause notice under Rule 92(3) and deficiency memo on ground of limitation was not permissible, allowing liberty only for show cause notice on rejection grounds
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner paid Kerala Flood Cess with GSTR-3B instead of Form KFC-A and later remitted cess correctly through KFC-A, relevant date for refund limitation is date of remittance in KFC-A, so refund claim filed within two years from that date was within limitation and rejection of refund as time-barred was not justified
Kerala High Court
Where petitioner paid Kerala Flood Cess with GSTR-3B by mistake and later correctly remitted it in KFC-A account, relevant date for refund limitation was date of correct remittance, so filing refund within two years from KFC-A payment made claim timely and rejection as time-barred was not sustainable
Karnataka High Court
Where manpower service provider deposited amounts through DRC-03 ahead of any statutory demand or fraud allegation, without DRC-04 acknowledgment and without interest or penalty as required for fraud matters, such payment was not voluntary under GST rules, thus, rejection of refund of such amount was erroneous and refund with interest was directed, keeping adjudication on underlying SCN open
Bombay High Court
Where pre-deposit was made for appeal and First Appellate Authority dropped part of tax demand with no departmental appeal against that portion, petitioner was entitled to proportionate refund of pre-deposit for amount set aside, as insistence on finality for entire proceedings was erroneous and retention of such amount was unauthorized in law
Madras High Court
Where petitioner was denied ITC on inputs used for construction of property intended for lease or license on grounds of blocked credit for immovable property, and Chief Commissioner of Central GST v. Safari Retreats (P.) Ltd. [2024] 167 where construction is for own use or as builder's business premises, orders made without considering said principle required fresh evaluation and same were to be set aside GST: Where revenue recovered amounts from electronic cash and credit ledgers without issuing pre-recovery intimation in FORM GST DRC-01D and without allowing statutory 7 days for payment, such recovery violated Rule 142B and statutory recovery scheme, especially as assessment orders had been set aside, entitling petitioner to restoration of all such debited amounts
Karnataka High Court
Where petitioner imported X-Ray inspection system prior to GST and claimed transitional ITC through GSTR-3B based on Central advice but refund was denied citing closure of TRAN-1 window and jurisdiction, as refund was never considered on merits, petitioner's claim required decision by Central authority, thus, petitioner was to be granted liberty to represent before respondent for decision on refund entitlement based on transitional credit
Madras High Court
Where SEZ unit exported information technology services on payment of IGST after utilising ITC distributed through ISD mechanism, it was held entitled to claim refund under zero-rated supply provisions as proviso restricting refund to supplier applied only to direct supplies to SEZ and petitioner qualified for zero-rated refund route
Karnataka High Court
Where petitioner challenged Show Cause Notice and validity of Rule 96(10) regarding refund of integrated tax paid on exports, since Rule 96(10) was struck down in same was and later omitted vide a notification, continuation of proceedings under said rule was unsustainable and all notices and proceedings were to be quashed
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Where petitioner company engaged in cement manufacturing was granted refund by order in 2022 but Revenue withheld release pending an appeal filed belatedly before Tribunal which remained unlisted, and petitioner could not be regarded as a fly-by-night operator, release of refund was directed subject to petitioner furnishing undertaking to redeposit if departmental appeal ultimately succeeded
Gujarat High Court
Where taxpayer deposited tax in electronic cash ledger before due dates for certain months but filed GSTR-3B belatedly, and department rejected refund of excess interest by applying Rule 88B prospectively while ignoring Arya Cotton ratio that interest under section 50 runs only till tax deposit, such rejection reflected selective denial and was unsustainable, mandating refund of excess interest deposited by petitioner along with statutory interest
Madras High Court
Where petitioner’s refund claims for were rejected due to portal glitches and lack of manual redressal, refund statutorily recognized could not be denied on such technical grounds, and respondent was required to accept physical documents, process claims manually, and issue refund orders in accordance with statutory entitlements
Madras High Court
Where assessee manufacturing combed cotton yarn used certain inputs taxable at higher rates than output and claimed refund of accumulated ITC under inverted duty structure, rejection of refund on ground that principal input matched output rate was improper since statute allows refund if any input attracts higher GST, circular restricting such refund was unconstitutional and refund with interest was directed
Kerala High Court
Where assessee filed online refund application within limitation period and acknowledgment was given, treating later manual filing date as relevant for limitation under Rule 97A was arbitrary, and refund claim had to be considered with reference to acknowledged online application date, thus rejection of refund as time-barred was unsustainable
Kerala High Court
Where exporter of educational consultancy services filed refund applications for CGST and SGST paid under reverse charge, refund applications could not be rejected at scrutiny stage under Rule 90(2) for wrong portal category selection, non- applicable statements, or insistence on e-BRC/FIRC where Remittance Advice established remittance; limitation and document acceptability required merits adjudication, and deficiency memos were unsustainable