Refund — tax rulings

Kerala High Court10 Jul 2026

For assessee

ABE Service (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner

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

Kerala High Court10 Jul 2026

For assessee

ABE Service (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner

Gujarat High Court2 Jul 2026

For assessee

Pranav Overseas LLP v. Union of India

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 Court2 Jul 2026

For assessee

Alstom Transport India Ltd. v. Union of India

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 Court29 Jun 2026

For assessee

Dilip Babubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat

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 Court25 Jun 2026

For assesseeRemanded

Rashmi Agency v. Deputy Commissioner CT & GST

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