Refund — tax rulings

Madras High Court14 Jul 2026

For assessee

Vindhya Spinning Mills (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise

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

Madras High Court14 Jul 2026

For assessee

Vindhya Spinning Mills (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise

Delhi High Court13 Jul 2026

For revenue

Karamsar Poultry Appliances v. Assistant Commissioner, Janakpuri Division, CGST Delhi West

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 Court10 Jul 2026

For assessee

MSD Pharmaceuticals (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner

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 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

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

Orissa High Court2 Jul 2026

For revenue

Paradeep Phosphates Ltd. v. Union of India

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 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

Madras High Court16 Jun 2026

Kuntal Granites (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Customs

Where petitioner, after receiving IGST refund on exports under Rule 96, was later served notice on ground of ineligibility due to not holding EPCG license and suffered refund suspension, matter was remanded permitting petitioner to file requisite documents for refund claim consideration, with direction for expeditious adjudication in accordance with law

Telangana High Court9 Jun 2026

For revenue

Cognizant Technology Solutions India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes

Where SEZ unit's refund claim under zero-rated supply provisions for IGST paid on group health insurance services was rejected and petitioner challenged same via writ, since questions on whether claim fell outside zero-rated supply or was simpliciter refund required consideration by appellate authority, writ was not to be entertained and petitioner was permitted to pursue statutory appeal