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.
10 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
Kerala High Court
Where exporter claimed refund of unutilised SGST from transitional credit after migration from KVAT but failed to produce GST TRAN-1 or proof that credit was available in Electronic Credit Ledger as on 01.07.2017, refund was rightly rejected and writ remedy was not available since statutory appellate remedies were bypassed and writ was filed belatedly
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
Telangana High Court
Where petitioners sought interest on delayed refund after principal refund was already sanctioned, insistence by authorities on fresh certification and compliance under Rule 89(2)(m) was not warranted, and Proper Officer was required to compute and sanction interest on basis of refund orders without demanding further documentation
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 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
Madras High Court
Where registered person inadvertently paid tax under IGST instead of splitting payment into CGST and SGST, and entire tax liability stood discharged within prescribed period, IGST paid was to be appropriated towards correct heads without requirement of fresh payment and re-refund, as statutory refund scheme applies only to inter-State to intra-State reclassification and not mere wrong-head allocation
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 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 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