Karnataka 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.
24 rulings found
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
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
Gujarat High Court
Where restriction under Rule 96(10) on IGST refund for exports was invoked after its omission without any saving or sunset clause, omission indicated legislative intent to end restriction for pending proceedings, so restriction could not apply and assessee was entitled to refund, rendering impugned communication unsustainable
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
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
Patna High Court
Where a works contractor's claim for refund of excess cash ledger balance was rejected citing ineligible input tax credit and prior-year dues, but no proceedings under Section 54(11) were initiated, withholding of refund was unwarranted and Commissioner was required to issue a notice, provide hearing and pass a reasoned order under Section 54(11) during pendency of appellate proceedings
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
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
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
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)