Case-law directory
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
36 rulings found
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
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
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
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
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