Madras High Court
For assesseeRemanded
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.
38 rulings found
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
Delhi High Court
Where assessee applied for refund of unutilized ITC while SCN proposed partial rejection and OIO partially sanctioned refund and rejected balance while OIA set aside OIO to extent of wrongful rejection without mandating unconditional release or foreclosing further examination; since a subsequent order rejected refund, proper course was statutory appeal to test reasons and scope and effect of OIA GST: Where petitioner challenged rejection of refund of unutilized ITC, statutory appeal remedy being available, writ interference was not warranted; liberty was granted to pursue statutory appeal
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
Rajasthan High Court
Where petitioner-college paid affiliation fees to university and demand for GST on such fees was raised, grant of affiliation being a statutory and regulatory function did not constitute supply, affiliation fees were not consideration for taxable activity and were exempt under Entry 66 of Notification 12/2017-CT (Rate), thus GST demand was unsustainable and refund was directed if collected
Gujarat High Court
Where assessee challenged restriction of refund of unutilized ITC under Rule 89(5) to inputs only excluding input services, it was held that amendment to Rule 89(5) by Notification No. 14/2022-CT, providing a revised formula for refund of unutilized ITC including input services, was curative and classificatory with retrospective effect; accordingly, RFD-03 deficiency memos were quashed and refund claims were directed to be processed under amended Rule 89(5) read with Section 54
Gujarat High Court
Where petitioner’s original refund application filed on an earlier date was wrongly refused leading to court-directed re-filing, interest under Section 56 must be calculated from original filing date, as initial refusal cannot defer statutory interest; thus, officer’s adoption of later date for interest denial was unsustainable and interest was to be granted from date of first filing
Orissa High Court
Refund of accumulated ITC recovered under retrospectively amended Rule 89(5) could be challenged before GSTAT; mere existence of departmental Circulars did not render appeal futile, as GSTAT could decide facts and law independently and thus, writ was to be dismissed with liberty to file statutory appeal
Gujarat High Court
Where rules 89(4B) and 96(10) were omitted by notification without any saving clause, all proceedings including SCNs and orders under those rules lapsed ab initio, making continuation of such proceedings impermissible, thus impugned order in original and subsequent actions were to be quashed and set aside in terms of (Gujarat)
Gujarat High Court
Where assessee transitioned pre-GST VAT credit to electronic credit ledger on introduction of GST regime, refund claim under Section 54(3) for such transitioned credit was impermissible due to statutory bar under second proviso to Section 142(3), and only regular GST-period ITC was eligible for refund; However, transitional VAT credit rejected should be re- credited in ECL of GST regime for future utilization under Section 140
Gujarat High Court
Where unregistered coaching institute admitted cash suppression and liability during search and voluntarily paid tax dues post-admission, with no contemporaneous complaint or evidence of coercion, such payment cannot be termed coercive recovery and allegation raised after two years is an afterthought not warranting interference under writ jurisdiction. GST: Where after search petitioner deposited quantified dues voluntarily via DRC-03, issuance of DRC-04 was only an acknowledgment with no prescribed timeline, and payment with interest and penalty concluded proceedings, so later refund claim and coercion narratives were afterthoughts, making rejection of refund plea and delayed DRC-04 issuance legally justified. GST: Where unregistered coaching institute deposited tax, interest and penalty voluntarily during search after quantification based on seized evidence of student count and fees, refund claim was rejected since refund arises only if tax was not payable or paid in excess, and no illegality was found in rejection, making cited circular and case laws inapplicable
Orissa High Court
Where petitioner secured appellate relief for refund of GST amount paid under protest and there was no pending proceeding or Commissioner’s order withholding refund in RFD-07 Part A at relevant date, Deputy Commissioner could not lawfully deny refund by relying on potential appeal or unexpired limitation
Rajasthan High Court
Where during search and seizure proceedings at business and partners' premises, substantial tax was extracted from petitioner via ITC reversal and cash entries before any show cause notice or voluntary acknowledgment, and contemporaneous records or safeguards for voluntary compliance were absent, such payment was not considered voluntary and retention of amount was unsustainable, necessitating refund of recovered amount. GST: Where petitioner claimed interest on refund amount alleging unauthorised recovery during search but investigation was still pending, no show cause notice was issued and no adjudication completed, entitlement to interest was premature, so grant of interest was declined pending final determination of liability after investigation, without prejudice to parties' rights on eventual outcome
Madras High Court
Where petitioner, after receiving IGST refund on exports under Rule 96, was later served notice on ground of ineligibility due to not holding EPCG license and suffered refund suspension, matter was remanded permitting petitioner to file requisite documents for refund claim consideration, with direction for expeditious adjudication in accordance with law
Karnataka High Court
Where assessee's export of services and refund eligibility were denied solely due to alleged non-furnishing of Letter of Undertaking without examining nature of transactions or actual furnishing of Letter of Undertaking as required under law, both adjudication and appellate orders were to be quashed and matter was to be remanded for fresh consideration regarding jurisdiction and refund entitlement based on Letter of Undertaking
Telangana High Court
Where SEZ unit's refund claim under zero-rated supply provisions for IGST paid on group health insurance services was rejected and petitioner challenged same via writ, since questions on whether claim fell outside zero-rated supply or was simpliciter refund required consideration by appellate authority, writ was not to be entertained and petitioner was permitted to pursue statutory appeal
Telangana High Court
Where department prematurely recovered entire confirmed GST demand from petitioner's bank before expiry of second appeal period and subsequently re- credited amount to e-cash ledger, dispute being limited to refund to bank versus e- cash credit, petitioner was granted liberty to apply for refund and application was to be decided expeditiously in accordance with law