GSTAT Chandigarh
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.
36 rulings found
GSTAT Chandigarh
Where exporter claimed refund of unutilised ITC for period based on invoices issued for export supplies under bond/LUT, turnover for refund was determined by invoice date within relevant period, not actual export date, so denial on ground of subsequent export was unwarranted when export stood established and invoices fell in period, making refund allowable. GST: Where exporter claimed refund of unutilised ITC for export without payment of tax and department alleged minor inclusion of ineligible credits in Net ITC computation under rule 89(4), such ineligible ITC did not materially impact maximum refund, which remained higher than amount sanctioned, so refund grant required no disturbance and departmental appeal was dismissed
GSTAT Ranchi
Reversal of ITC (Cess) relating to earlier periods could not be deducted from Net ITC for current refund period under Rule 89(4); “input tax credit availed” would refer to credit actually availed during current period, and para 43(c) of Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST could not override statute, hence, refund was properly computed
GSTAT Ranchi
Where manufacturer-exporter of mild steel billets exported goods under LUT without payment of tax causing accumulation of Cess ITC, refund of Net ITC must reflect credit availed and attributable to refund period only, so reversal of earlier period credit subsequently booked could not reduce Net ITC for relevant period, and departmental circular could not override statutory formula
Supreme Court
SLP was filed against impugned order of High Court holding that where refund granted to assessee on export of goods was sought to be demanded under Rule 96(10), since Notification No. 20-2024, dated 8-10-2024 was issued during pendency of appeal filed by assessee against such demand, whereby Rule 96(10) was omitted, proceedings of order in original as well as order passed by appellate authority were to be set aside; instant court held issues were squarely covered by Goodluck India Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. and dismissed SLP
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
GSTAT Lucknow
Where manufacturer of edible oils re-filed differential ITC refund claims for same periods after remand due to changes in refund formula and satisfied substantive and procedural requirements under Section 54 and Rule 89, technically rejected supplementary claims were maintainable if within limitation, and technical objections could not override substantive entitlement, thus, appellate authority's grant of refund required no interference
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
GSTAT Kolkata
Merely because inputs and outputs shared same HSN classification and manufacturing status was unverified, refund of accumulated ITC under an inverted duty structure could not be denied; in view of law that GST is levied on supply rather than manufacture, refund of accumulated credit from higher rated taxed inputs was legitimate GST: Where supplier of wearing apparel at 5 percent using inputs taxed at 5, 12 or 18 percent claimed refund for accumulated ITC under inverted duty structure, and there was no reduction of GST rate for inputs or outputs during relevant period, para 3.2 of Circular No. 135/05/2020-GST was inapplicable and refund could not be denied on basis of such circular; statutory refund formula would prevail. GST: Where respondent claimed refund of accumulated ITC on apparel supplies due to inverted duty structure for specific periods, and authorities verified period-wise computation as per Rule 89(5), absence of annual turnover figures in determination and compliance with Rule 89(5) meant refunds were correctly allowed and period- wise computation as required was not infringed. GST: Where refunds were claimed for inverted duty structure on apparel supplies and revenue alleged inclusion of ineligible ITC and verification infirmities, but appellate authority conducted detailed document-wise reconciliation and found claims in order, revenue’s failure to produce contrary evidence meant refund orders were sustained and appeals were dismissed as lacking merit
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
GSTAT Kolkata
Where assessee supplied packaged tea taxed at 5 percent using packing materials taxed at 12 percent or 18 percent, resulting in ITC accumulation, refund of ITC under inverted duty structure was allowable since statutory provisions and CBIC circular recognised packing materials as eligible inputs, and refund could not be denied merely because principal input and output attracted identical tax rate. GST: Where respondent supplied packaged tea using bulk tea both taxed at 5 percent and packing materials taxed at 12 or 18 percent, and claimed refund of accumulated ITC under inverted duty structure, Circular 135/5/2020 was inapplicable as there was no change in GST rate on same goods, and statutory refund entitlement could not be curtailed by such circular
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
GSTAT Kolkata
Refund of accumulated ITC claimed on export of goods could not be denied merely on basis of absence of toll plaza movements where goods were supplied under Bill To Ship To model and E way Bills, bilty copies, shipping bills, EGM details, transporter's certificate and bank statements established transportation and export; toll plaza receipts were not mandatory documents