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.
4 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
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
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Where petitioner, an information technology and IT-enabled services provider, was treated as exporter and granted refund of unutilized input tax credit for same services in periods before and after, rejection of refund for intervening period by classifying petitioner as intermediary without material distinction in services was illegal and arbitrary, so appellate order was set aside
GSTAT New Delhi
Where assessee chemical manufacturer engaged Dow Europe GmbH under procurement agreement for vendor identification and negotiation support, and Dow Europe acted independently without authority to bind assessee, services did not qualify as intermediary but as import of services, so place of supply remained in India, making IGST payable under reverse charge with refund claim rightly rejected. GST: Where assessee paid IGST under reverse charge on import of services, reversed related ITC and sought refund, in absence of export and with place of supply being in India, statutory conditions for refund were not met, and thus assessee had no entitlement to refund for the relevant period, warranting dismissal of appeals challenging rejection of refund claims