Case Digest on Refund under GST

Tax refund, refers to the amount that receives from the government because the paid taxes exceed the computed tax liability. It is essentially a tax reimbursement. Tax refunds are usually applicable when the advance tax, TDS or self-assessment tax paid by the taxpayer ends up being higher than the overall tax liability.

Any person claiming refund of any tax and interest,may make an application before the expiry of two years from the relevant date in such form and manner as may be prescribed: Provided that a registered person, claiming refund of any balance in the electronic cash ledger in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (6) of section 49, may claim such refund in the return furnished under section 39 in such manner as may be prescribed.

CHYAWAN PRAKASH MEENA S/O- SH ROOP CHAND MEENA vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS  2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 358

The Gauhati High Court (HC) presided by Justice Soumitra Saikia ordered the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) and concerned Income Tax Officer (ITO) to expedite the Tax Deduction Source (TDS) refund process to the Scheduled Tribe Officer within 3 weeks.

The bench noted that this matter had already been resolved in the case of Pradip Kr. Taye and Others v. Union of India and Others, in which it was decided that Schedule Tribe members would be entitled to the benefits of Section 10(26) of the Income Tax Act regardless of where they were posted.

M/S MAHAJAN FABRICS PVT. LTD vs COMMISSIONER  2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 339

The Delhi High Court ( HC ) has held that refund under section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017(CGST) is allowable when there is no tangible reason to doubt the particulars.

A two-member bench comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan observed that the petitioner had filed its return disclosing all necessary details for claiming the refund. The review order dated 15.03.2020 to file an appeal against the Order-in-Original is founded on an erroneous finding.

Arun Krishnachandra Goswami vs Union of India & Ors.  2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 666

In an assessee-friendly ruling where the payment of GST was made to the railway instead of the GST department, the Bombay High Court has asked the department to take a sympathetical view while imposing penalty and interest finding that the payment was made under a bonafide belief.

A division bench of K.R. Shriram & A.S. Doctor noted that there was no attempt of evading tax and the Petitioner had paid the amount wrongly to Railways and due to the huge Railway network, Railway was not in an immediate administrative position to check and react to such wrongful deposits.

Micro Systems and Services Sole vs Union of India 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 664

Relying on the recent GST circular dated 6th July 2022, where the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has clarified the refund under inverted duty structure where supplier is supplying goods under concessional notification, the Telangana High Court has directed the GST department to consider a refund claim by the assessee.

A Coram of Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice C.V.Bhaskar Reddy observed that as per the Circular No.173/05/2022-GST dated 06.07.2022. Board has clarified that it was not the intent of paragraph 3.2 of Circular dated 31.03.2020 to cover the cases where the supplier is making supply of goods under a concessional notification and the rate of tax on output supply is less than the rate of tax on input supply (of the same goods) at the same point of time due to supply of goods by the supplier under a concessional notification.

SBI Cards & Payment Services Limited vs Union of India and others  2021 TAXSCAN (HC) 177

In a major relief to  SBI Cards & Payment Services, the Punjab & Haryana High Court directed the Authority to refund GST worth Rs.108 crores paid under the wrong head.

The division bench of Justice Ajay Tewari and Justice Alka Sarin opined that in a normal case this may have been an appropriate order to pass but in the present case it cannot be lost sight of that there is no dispute about the amount of tax, rather it was on the requirement of the respondents that the petitioner paid an additional amount of Rs.108 crores approximately.

YASHO INDUSTRIES LIMITED vs UNION OF INDIA CITATION:  2021 TAXSCAN (HC) 635

The Gujarat High Court held that the Payment made under Form GST DRC-03 to be adjusted by the GST Authority against tax erroneously refunded.The division bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice A.C.Joshi the petitioners having made payment under Section 74(5), they appear to have informed the Proper Officer of such payment in the Form GST DRC-03 (Annexure-F) as contemplated in Rule 142(2) of the said Rules. It is needless to say that the said payment shall be dealt with or adjusted by the concerned respondent in accordance with law more particularly as per the provisions contained in Section 74 of the CGST Act.

M/s. M/s Balkrishna Industries   CITATION:   2021 TAXSCAN (AAR) 326

The Gujarat Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) ruled in respect of the eligibility for GST refunds when the applicant avails duty exemption but opt to pay IGST on import under Advance Authorization.

The Coram consisting of Sanjay Saxena and Mohit Aggarwal ruled that the importers who are directly importing supplies on which benefit of reduced tax incidence or no tax incidence under certain notifications specified under rule 96(10) has been availed, shall not be eligible for refund of integrated tax paid on export.

M/S GUJARAT CO-OPERATIVE MILK MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED vs UNION OF INDIA  CITATION: 2020 TAXSCAN (HC) 263

The Gujarat High Court has permitted the petitioner to file the refund application as chilling and packaging of milk is exempted under Goods and Service Tax (GST).

The division bench of the High Court of Gujarat comprising of Justice Harsha Devani and Justice Sangeeta K. Vishen has held that the activities of chilling and packaging services of milk which is provided by the contractors to the petitioners are exempted by the virtue of Serial No. 24 of the table to the Notification No. 11/2017. And as a consequence guided the petitioner to file the refund application as chilling and packaging of milk is exempted under Goods and Service Tax (GST).

M/S PRINCE SPINTEX PVT LTD Versus UNION OF INDIA 2020 TAXSCAN (HC) 264

The Gujarat High Court has allowed the Refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax ( IGST ) paid on the Import of Goods under Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme.

The division bench comprising of Justice Harsha Devani and Justice Sangeeta K. Vishen granted the petitioner exemption under Notification No. 16/2015-cus dated April 1, 2015, for the purpose of implementing the incentive scheme for import of goods under Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme.

M/s.A.Rangasamy Engineers (Pvt.)Ltd vs Commercial Tax Officer 2017 TAXSCAN (HC) 101

In the recent case M/s .A. Rangasamy Engineers (Pvt.)Ltd v. CTO, the Madras High Court held that the assessee is entitled to interest for delayed payment of refund in case of excess payment of tax.

In the light of the above provision, the bench said that the petitioner is entitled to interest for the delayed payment of refund and the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

M/s. CJ DARCL LOGISTICS LIMITED vs Union of India  2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 366

In a significant case, the Jharkhand High Court ( HC ) has held that the GST department cannot go beyond the scope of a Show Cause Notice( SCN ) at a later stage of adjudication.

A single-member bench comprising Justice Deepak Roshan observed that the order of adjudication is bad in law since it has been passed beyond the scope of show cause notice and set aside the impugned show cause notice dated 17th May 2021. While allowing the appeal, the Court quashed the consequent order in the original dated 14.06.2021

M/S MAHAJAN FABRICS PVT. LTD vs COMMISSIONER  CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 339

The Delhi High Court ( HC ) has held that refund under section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017(CGST) is allowable when there is no tangible reason to doubt the particulars.

A two-member bench comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan observed that the petitioner had filed its return disclosing all necessary details for claiming the refund. The review order dated 15.03.2020 to file an appeal against the Order-in-Original is founded on an erroneous finding.

M/s Gajraj Vahan Private Limited vs The State of Jharkhand and others  CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 316

A Single Bench of Jharkhand High Court held that rejection of GST refund under Section 77(1) of CGST Act 2017, could not be claimed on fresh application.

 A Single Bench of Chief Justice Deepak Roshan no fresh application can be made on the face of rejection observing that, as per the amended Rule 89 (1A) of CGST Rules, 2017 and Circular dated 25.09.2021, the limitation period for seeking.

MEGICON IMPEX PVT LTD vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DELHI WEST & ORS.  CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 317

The Delhi High Court ( HC ) has held that the application for a refund under section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST) can’t be rejected on the ground of expiry of limitation since the period from 01.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was excluded.

The two-member bench comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan viewed that the impugned orders cannot be sustained as the benefit of the relaxation in the period of limitation has not been accorded to the petitioner. The Court directed the respondents to process the petitioner’s application for a refund under law.

M/S. CHOKSI EXPORTS vs UNION OF INDIA  CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 266

In pursuance of section 54(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST) of 2017 and the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act of 2017, the Gujarat High Court (HC), presided over by Justice Sonia Gokhani and Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt, ordered the authorities to refund the claim of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) that is allegedly withheld illegally.

The Division Bench ordered the respondents-authorities to grant the amount of IGST refund to the petitioner as claimed by the petitioner and credit such amount to the petitioner’s account within three weeks of the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. vs STATE OF GUJARAT  CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 221

Gujarat High Court bench of Justice Sonia Gokhani and Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt directed the department to refund the Central Sales Tax to Indian Oil Corporation.

The division bench ordered the respondents to process the petitioner’s refund application and award the return of the tax amount that had been dutifully received from the petitioner and submitted by the seller.

M/s Gordhandas Gobindram vs State of Chhattisgarh CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1060

The Chhattisgarh High Court has recently allowed the petitioner-Gordhandas Gobindram to seek reimbursement of the additional levy on implementation of Goods and Services Tax for contracts and work orders that had been executed during the extant regime.

The SIngle Bench of Justice P Sam Koshy directed the petitioners to file their claims at the concerned authority. The respondents were also directed to scrutinize the claim and take a decision within 90 days of receipt of claim.

VALLABH TEXTILES vs SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER AND ORS CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1047

The Delhi High Court has recently directed the GST department to release a refund of Rs. 1.8 crores along with an interest of 6% for the reason that the department has not complied with the CBIC circular prohibiting payment during search proceedings and prescribing guidelines for receipt of voluntary payment by the assessee.

Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju observed that if the person chargeable with tax takes recourse to such a route, the proper officer is restrained from serving any notice qua tax or penalty under the provisions of the 2017 Act or the 2017 Rules framed thereunder, 2 unless the amount which is self-ascertained by the person chargeable with tax falls short of the amount payable as per law.

Adisan Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India Through the Revenue Secretary 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1007

A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has recently set aside an order rejecting the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Input Tax Credit (ITC) refund claim of the petitioner-Adisan Laboratories Private Limited for alleged lack of compliance of natural justice of the Department.

The Division Bench of Justice Nitin Ramdar and Justice Gauri Godse refrained from deciding the matter on merits and restored it to the respondents for an adjudication after reasonable chances are given to the petitioner to be heard. The impugned order was also set aside.

M/S MANAPPURAM FINANCE LTD vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER  CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1004

In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court, while allowing a petition by M/s Manappuram Finance Ltd, has held that the circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) clarifying that GST not applicable to the notice pay received from an employee, has retrospective effect and has directed the GST department to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner (employee).

The Court held that “As a result of the aforesaid findings, this writ petition is allowed. Ext.P1 and all orders rejecting the application of the petitioner for a refund of GST paid on notice pay received by the petitioner from its employees will stand quashed. The applications filed by the petitioner for refund shall stand restored to the file of the 1st respondent, who shall reconsider the matter, having regard to the findings contained in this judgment.”

M/S FIRMENICH AROMATICS PRODUCTION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED vs UNION OF INDIA  2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 978

The Gujarat High Court has recently issued notice to the Central Government seeking the steps taken towards the formulation of Goods and Services Tax (GST) Tribunal in a Civil Application filed by Firmenich Aromatics Production (INDIA) Private Limited.

The Supreme Court had earlier insisted that the GST Tribunal Should be Completely Paperless and should strictly follow the e-filing mode while pursuing revenue litigation in High Courts and specialized fora like CESTAT, ITAT and especially GST Tribunal.

Abi Egg Traders vs Assistant Commissioner  CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 880

AtWhile delivering an assessee-friendly ruling, the Madras High Court has directed the GST department to process the ITC claim since the same was rejected solely on the ground of inadvertent error.

Justice Anita Sumanth observed that “Nowhere in the counter nor in the course of the oral arguments before me, does Ms.Lydia, learned standing counsel, dispute the entitlement of the petitioner to the refund. In fact, she would fairly accede to the position that the error is bonafide and reiterate that the petitioner is, in fact, entitled to the refund of ITC seeing as the export was not liable to tax.”

Genpact India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and others CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 874

In a recent ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the Genpact India cannot be treated as an “intermediary” and therefore allowed a refund of Rs.26,34,61,625/- in favor of the Company.

A division bench comprising Justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa and Justice Deepak Manchanda observed that the MSA dated 01.01.2013 (Annexure P-1) entered between the petitioner and GI is clearly for the purpose of sub-contracting services to the petitioner by GI. These are the very services which GI was contractually supposed to provide to its own customers.

M/S CHROMOTOLAB AND BIOTECH SOLUTIONS vs UNION OF INDIA  2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 817

In a significant ruling, a division bench of the Gujarat High Court has held that the date of filing of the application as reflected on GST portal would be liable to be treated as date of filing claim for refund to the satisfaction of the requirement of Section 54 of the Central GST Act and Rule 89 of the Central GST Rules.

While relying upon the judgements of the Supreme Court, Justice N.V.Anjaria and Justice Bhargav D. Karia observed that “the date of filing of the application by the petitioner on common portal would be liable to be treated as date of filing claim for refund to the satisfaction of requirement of Section 54 of the CGST Act and Rule 89 of the CGST Rules. The procedure evolved in Circular dated 15.11.2017 cannot operate as a delimiting condition on the applicability of statutory provisions.”

M/S Rc Industries vs Union Of India  2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 800

The Allahabad High Court Division Bench of Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit is to examine whether the Rule 96(10)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 is in ultra vires or within the limits of Section 16(3)(b) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act, 2017.

The High Court directed the counsels appearing for the respondents to file counter affidavits within two weeks and renotified the matter to be heard on a later date to examine the issue of vires of the Rule 96(10)(b) of the CGST Rules, 2017.

Asia (Chennai) Engineering Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC),  2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 773

In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court has held that the filing of a reply to the show-cause notice in form GST-DRC-06 is not mandatory under Section 73(9), 74(9) and 76(3) of GST Act and the reply so filed through post shall also be treated as valid.

Justice M. Nirmal Kumar observed that “In view of non-consideration, the petitioner denied his right of opportunity, and principles of natural justice.” The Court further held that the only objection of the Department is that the postal/physical reply was not considered since it was not sent through the portal. “The petitioner deserves a personal hearing so that his objections can be heard. This case is for an erroneous refund. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate that a personal hearing is given and the documents considered, thereafter the Department to proceed further.

KISHAN LAL KURIA MAL INTERNATIONAL vs UNION OF INDIA   2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 735

The Delhi High Court in a significant case, allowed the refund of IGST claimed by the petitioner on exported goods after deducting differential duty drawback.

The Bench allowed the writ application and the respondents were directed to immediately sanction the refund of the IGST paid regarding the goods exported,i.e. zero-rated supplies, with 7% simple interest from the date of the shipping bills till the date of actual refund.

Commissioner (Appeals) has clearly traveled beyond the scope of allegations in the Show Cause Notice since not in dispute. Therefore, the said observation of the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be legally sustained.”

CITATION:   2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 718

In a major relief to Axis Bank, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed the GST department to re-consider the refund claim relying on the circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC).

The adjudicating authority holds that the transaction is an inter-State supply and if ‘A’ pays IGST in respect of the transaction on 10.05.2019, the last date for filing a refund application would be 23.09.2023. However, if a particular person pays IGST on the same transaction on 10.11.2022 i.e. after issuance of Notification No.35/2021, the last date for filing would be 09.11.2024. Relying upon the said Circular and transactions and having regard to the above Circular issued, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks remand of the matter, but the same is opposed strenuously by Sri Suresh Kumar Routhu, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents.”

RK Infracorp Pvt Ltd Vs Case Number: W.P. No. 17958 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 683

While considering a petition challenging an endorsement by the GST department rejecting the already sanctioned GST refund not released due to technical glitches on the GST portal, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed the department to re-consider the claim and pay interest if the assessee is eligible.

Allowing the petitions, Justice C.Praveen Kumar and Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu remanded the matters back to the Assistant Commissioner [State Tax] to deal with the same afresh after accepting the applications filed by the Petitioner in the month of January 2020, for refund of excess balance in the Electronic Cash Ledger, in accordance with law, by giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the Order.

M/s CTC (India) Private Limited vs Commissioner 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 669

A division bench of the Jharkhand High Court has held that the GST refund claims are not allowable if the same are not supported by documentary evidence under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Deepak Roshan observed that the Appellate Authority has given a categorical finding that the application for refund of unutilized ITC on account of zero rated supplies has to be accompanied by documentary evidence to establish that a refund is genuinely due to the applicant.

Globeop Financial Services Technologies Private Limited vs Additional Commissioner.Central Tax, GST Gurugram  2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 578

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has stayed a show-cause notice issued by the GST department denying export refund to an exporter on ground of “erroneous refund”.

Allowing interim relief to the petitioner, Justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa and Justice Pankaj Jain observed that “It is argued that under such circumstances the impugned show cause notice dated 15.06.2022 (Annexure P-1) cannot sustain and suffers from jurisdictional infirmity inasmuch as “tax being erroneously refunded” has been erroneously assumed.”

In Re: M/s Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (AAAR) 135

The Delhi Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling ( AAAR ) comprising Smt. Mallika Arya, Member (Centre), and Shri Ankur Garg, Member (State) held that delay in filing an appeal beyond the prescribed limit can’t be condoned.

The Bench held that the authority can’t entertain this appeal beyond the extended period under the proviso would render the phrase “not exceeding thirty days” as the Appellate Authority is not a “Court” and hence the power to condone beyond the prescribed period does not arise. The appeal was dismissed on grounds of time limitation.

In Re: M/s Rod Retail Private Limited CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (AAAR) 132

The Delhi Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling(AAAR) has held that the supply of goods to outbound international travelers falls under ‘supply’ which attracts GST and upholds the order of  Delhi AAR.

Section 15 of the IGST Act, 2017 applies to tourists leaving India and any supply of goods taken out of India by him shall be refunded in the manner prescribed and the arguments of the appellant that they should be treated on par with Duty-Free Shops (DFS) was not sustained.

ABHISHEK GUMBER, PROPRIETOR OF M/S AG ENTERPRISES vs COMMISSIONER OF GST, NEW DELHI  CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 529

While considering a petition challenging the show cause notice by the GST department has held that the same is premature since the appeal relating to claim of refund is still under process.

A bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju observed that once the petitioner’s refund claim was rejected on the ground that it was founded on forged ITC, the petitioner would be liable to pay tax, interest and perhaps also penalty, in the event the adjudication order is sustained.

RAMESH KUMAR PATODIA vs CITI BANK NA AND ORS.CITATION:  2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 521

The Calcutta High Court, while considering a writ petition by an individual, held that the Integrated GST is applicable on the interest component of the Equated Monthly Instalments (EMIs) of a loan advanced by a bank on a credit card as the same does not come within the purview of exempted services.

Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya analyzed the terms and conditions of the offer of loan dated February 21, 2019 and February 28, 2019 and observed that the said offer was valid only for customers holding a Citibank Credit Card issued in India and who avail of a loan on their card digitally.

Baker Hughes Asia Pacific Limited vs Union Of India  2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 514

The Rajasthan High Court comprising Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani has held that the GST Circular regarding the refund of accumulated ITC under section 54(3)(ii) would not be applicable in cases where the input and the output supplies are the same, is contrary to the provisions of the Central GST Act.

While concluding, the High Court held that the circular dated 31.03.2020, being a subordinate legislation, is repugnant and conflicting to the parent legislation i.e. Section 54(3)(ii) of the CGST Act and hence, the same cannot be applied to oust the legitimate claim for accumulated ITC refund filed by the petitioner. Otherwise also, the claim for refund of ITC filed by the petitioner was for a period prior to issuance of the circular dated 31.03.2020.

PRISM JOHNSON LIMITED vs UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY REVENUE  2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 494

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has disallowed refund of accumulated credit of compensation cess in the absence of ITC of cess in Credit Ledger for relevant period.

Justice Sheel Nagu & Justice Maninder S Bhatti observed that the claim for refund has been declined by assigning reasons that are sufficient to enable the assessee to know the exact cause for rejection of the claim for refund, but the reasons assigned cannot categorize the impugned orders to be non-speaking.

ADI ENTERPRISES vs UNION OF INDIA  UCHIT N SHETH  2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 495

A division bench of the Gujarat High Court comprising Justice A.J.Desai and Justice Bhargav D. Karia has allowed IGST refund alongwith interest in the light of the recent Supreme Court decision in Mohit Minerals v. Union of India.

The applicant approached the High Court after the Apex Court ruling and sought for necessary direction to be issued to the GST department to refund the amount of tax already paid by the applicant. Allowing the application, the division bench held that “We have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court upholding the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in a group of writ petitions, referred to herein above.

ABHISHEK GUMBER vs COMMISSIONER OF GST 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 489

A division bench of the Delhi High Court has held that the GST department cannot issue a fresh notice during the pendency of the proceedings under section 73 and 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The division bench observed that “the notice was adjudicated up on and the matter was decided partly in favor of the Petitioner, pursuant to which no demand was raised in the Refund Sanction/Rejection Order dated 18.05.2022. While the Petitioner has assailed part of the order by an appeal, the Respondent has not filed any appeal and it is thus not open to issue the impugned Demand Notice on the same cause of action under Section 73 of the Act.”

Jar Productions Private Limited vs Union of India & Ors. 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 468

A division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice S.V. Gangapurwala & Justice M.G.Sewlikar has allowed a refund claim quashing the orders of the GST authorities by holding that GST is not applicable to services rendered outside India and the authorities could not establish that the incident of tax has been passed on to the recipient ASCL located in London.

The Court observed that “this court relying on the Apex court judgment held that when services are rendered abroad, CGST will not apply. In the case at hand also, the petitioner has rendered services to the ASCL abroad i.e. in the U.K. Therefore, GST does not apply to the services rendered abroad as they amount to the export of services.

The Principle Commissioner vs Joint Commissioner (Appeal)  2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 461

While upholding an order granting GST refund, the Calcutta High Court has held that the goods attracting nil rate of cess shall be treated as ‘exempted’ for the purpose of adjusted total turnover under Rule 89(4) of the Central GST Rules.

The Court upheld the order of the appellate authority observing that the authority while passing the impugned order has neither committed any procedural irregularity nor any jurisdictional error nor any violation of principles of natural justice and the impugned order is based on cogent reasons and is speaking one.

PHOENIX CONTACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORTS), NEW DELHI (HC) 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 456

In a major relief to Phoenix Contact India Private Ltd, a two-judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Poonam A. Bamba has held that IGST refund is allowable on zero-rated supplies. Earlier, the department has denied the claim pointing out the correction in two shipping bills and higher duty drawback claim.

the High Court observed that “there is no dispute that the petitioner has paid the IGST. The petitioner in terms of Section 16 of the IGST Act1 read with Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 is clearly entitled to refund of IGST. Rule 96 of the CGST Rules 3 also clearly provides for refund of IGST in respect of zero rated supplies.”

M/S.Abi Technologies vs The Assistant Commissioner of Customs  2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 434

In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court has allowed a refund claim of the exporter and held that the strict application of GST rules to deny legitimate export incentives to the exporters would defeat the legislative intent of export incentives.

It was also observed that the procedures prescribed under the aforesaid Rules should not be applied strictly so as to defeat the legitimate export incentives, which an exporter otherwise would have been entitled to but for the technicality involved in the system.

M/S Alok Traders vs Commissioner Commercial Taxes And 2 Others 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 364

The division bench of Allahabad High Court presided by Mr. Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Mr. Justice Jayant Banerji has directed the department to refund the amount unlawfully collected along with interest on delayed refund.

The High Court observed that the password of the temporary I.D. created by the officer was never communicated to the petitioner despite repeated demands made by him. The appellate authority directed for refund and the order was communicated to the respondents by the petitioner on 09.07.2018, then, the respondents were bound to refund the amount along with interest under Section 56 of the CGST/ U.P. GST Act, 2017 but on one hand, they arbitrarily withheld the refund of the petitioner for more than 33 months and on the other hand, they again arbitrarily acted and have not granted interest to the petitioner on the delayed refund of the amount in question.

UNION OF INDIA & ORS vs M/S. WILLOWOOD CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. & ANR CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (SC) 135

The Supreme Court has observed that in case of delay in granting Integrated GST refund cannot exceed 6% as per the principal provisions of section 50 of the Central GST Act, 2017, especially when the delay was not inordinate.

The relevant provision has a prescribed rate of interest at 6 percent where the case for refund is governed by the principal provision of Section 56 of the CGST Act. As has been clarified by this Court in Modi Industries Ltd.9 and Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. 7 wherever a statute specifies or regulates the interest, the interest will be payable in terms of the provisions of the statute. Wherever a statute, on the other hand, is silent about the rate of interest and there is no express bar for payment of interest, any delay in paying the compensation or the amounts due, would attract award of interest at a reasonable rate on equitable grounds.``

I-TECH PLAST INDIA PVT. LTD vs STATE OF GUJARAT  2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 296

A two-judge bench of the Gujarat High Court has held that if the authorities acknowledge the error and accept repayment of the erroneous refund, it is logical to restore the ITC in the electronic tax ledger.

The Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Nisha Thakore observed that “if the authorities have accepted that there was an error and resultantly, accepted repayment of the erroneous refund, as a corollary, the credit of the ITC must be restored. It cannot be that for the purpose of repayment, there was an error, and for the purpose of restoration of the ITC, there was no error. There is no question of any refund of the ITC at all. The question is one of restoration of the ITC in the electronic credit ledger and not a refund thereof. Hence, any reference to sub-rule (10) of rule 96 of the CGST Rules is completely misconceived and not tenable.”

RICHIE RICH EXIM SOLUTIONS vs COMMISSIONER OF CGST DELHI SOUTH  2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 270

In Richie Rich Exim Solutions vs Commissioner of CGST, the Delhi High Court quashed the rejection order or refund of RS. 98,54,248/- claimed by the petitioner under the ground in violation of GST Rules 2017.

Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Poonam A Bamba observed that the respondent failed to discharge the onus which is placed on it, to demonstrate that a date had been fixed for grant of personal hearing to the petitioner.

Gamma Gaana Limited VS Union Of India And 3 Others CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 166

A division bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that the refund application under the Goods and Service Tax (GST) cannot be rejected merely on the ground of delay.

The Supreme Court in the suo-motu writ petition ordered that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special law in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022.

Union of India vs M/s Bundl Technologies Private Limited CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 101

A division bench of the Karnataka High Court has ordered the GST department to grant a refund of Rs. 27 crores illegally collected from Swiggy.

Single-judge Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav held that payment of the amount made by the company during the course of investigation was involuntary. Holding that “a statutory power has to be exercised within a system of controls and has to be exercised by relevance and reason. It needs reiteration that a statutory power should not be exercised in a manner, so as to instill fear in the mind of a person,” the Court observed that the issue of whether Green Finch is a legitimate entity and whether Swiggy rightfully availed input tax credit need not to be considered by the High Court, as the investigation is pending.

M/s.Ganges International Private Ltd. VS The Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 118

The Madras High Court has allowed the Credit of Service Tax Paid under RCM which could not be availed as Transitional Credit under the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) regime.

A Single Judge bench of Justice R. Suresh Kumar observed that, “in these kinds of special situations, for which, the provision if not Section 142(3), no other eligible provision is available. Therefore, this Court feels that, since it is a dire necessity, as these kind of situation necessarily to be met with by the Legislation, for which, these transitional provision has been brought in in the Statute Book, there can be no impediment for invoking Section 142(3) of the Act by invoking the ‘Doctrine of Necessity ”.

MESSERS FILATEX INDIA LTD. vs UNION OF INDIA CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 147

A two-judge bench of the Gujarat High Court consisting Justice J.B.Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M.Thakore has held that the input or output ratios to be considered for determining the quantum of refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC).

The division bench has directed Assistant Commissioner to adjudicate the claim of the writ applicants in accordance with Sub Rule (4B) of Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, but keeping in mind the formula of input or output ratio of the inputs or raw materials used in the manufacturing of the exported goods.

M/s. Globus Petro Additions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Union of India CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1119

The Bombay High Court has quashed the Order rejecting GST Refund Application, and directed the Commissioner to pass order after granting the opportunity of being heard.

The division bench of Justice S.M.Modak and Justice R.D.Dhanuka has held that a perusal of the Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner indicates that he has refused to comply with the Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-II) by recording reasons as to why the said Order cannot be complied with as if the Assistant Commissioner was sitting in appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)

SAMAY ALLOYS INDIA PVT. LTD. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1120

The Gujarat High Court while directing the GST Department to refund Rs.20 Lakh to assessee held that no power of negative block for credit to be availed in future.

The division bench of Justice J.B.Pardiwala and Justice Nisha M. Thakore has ruled that the respondents are directed to withdraw the negative block of the electronic credit ledger at the earliest. The court ruled that the condition precedent for exercise of power under Rule 86A of the GST Rules is the availability of credit in the electronic credit ledger which is alleged to be ineligible. If credit balance is available, then the authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, not allow the debit of an amount equivalent to such credit. However, there is no power of negative block for credit to be availed in future.

JAL ENGINEERING THROUGH PARTNER KARISHMA SHAIKH vs UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 193

The Gujarat High Court has directed GST Department to sanction refund towards IGST paid in respect to the goods exported i.e. ‘Zero Rated Supplies’.

The division bench of Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Nisha M.Thakore has ruled that the sanction of the refund towards the IGST paid in respect of the goods exported i.e. “Zero rated supplies'', the shipping bills ought to have been completed as the two circumstances provided in sub clauses (a) & (b) of Clause (4) of Rule 96 of Rules, 2017 do not exist. The shipping bills, as per Rule 96, exporter once file are deemed to be an application for refund of Integrated tax paid on the exports of goods and withholding of the same is made permissible under Rule 96 (4) when read with Section 54 as specified in the said decision of Amit Cotton Industries (supra).

Colgate Global Business Services Pvt. Ltd. vs The Union Of India CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 198

In a relief to Colgate Global Business Services, the Bombay High Court has quashed the Order rejecting GST Refund as no reason was stated by the deputy commissioner of state tax.

The court directed the Respondent to pass a fresh Order without being influenced by the observations made and the conclusions drawn in the impugned Order dated 15th June 2020 and in accordance with law expeditiously and not later than three weeks from the date of granting personal hearing to the Petitioner.

M/s Triveni Electrodes, F-78, Brij Industrial Area, Bharatpur VS Union Of India CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 163

The Rajasthan High court has upheld the provision related to claiming of GST refund of unutilised ITC.

The division bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sameer Jain held that the Supreme Court in the Union of India and others Vs. VKC Footsteps India Pvt. Ltd., 2021 has upheld the vires of the statutory provisions under consideration.

Quest Global Engineering Services Pvt Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 203

The Madras High Court has  directed the taxpayer to request customers to issue appropriate credit notes to neutralize alleged excess GST payment as litigation is barred by Limitation.

The single bench of Justice C.Saravanan held that the option available to the petitioner was to request its customer/client M/s.Caterpillar India Private Limited to issue an appropriate credit notes to neutralize the alleged excess payment of GST while generating and issuing invoices dated 01.11.2017 details of which was captured in their regular return and tax was paid. “The refund claim filed by the petitioner is clearly barred under the limitation prescribed under Section 54(1) of the respective enactments read with explanation (h),” the court said.

Saiher Supply Chain Consulting Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Union Of India 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1121

The Bombay High Court directed the department to accept the GST Refund Application as the period of limitation fell between the period excluded by the Supreme Court.

The division bench of Justice S.M.Modak and Justice R.D.Dhanuka held that the Respondent is also bound by the said Order dated 23rd March 2020 and the Order dated 23rd September 2021 and is required to exclude the period of limitation falling during the said period. Since the period of limitation for filing the third refund application fell between the said period 15th March 2020 and 2nd October 2021, the said period stood excluded. The third refund application filed by the Petitioner thus was within the period of limitation prescribed under the said Circular dated 18th November 2019 read with Section 54(1) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017. The impugned Order passed by the Respondent is contrary to the Order passed by the Supreme Court and thus deserves to be quashed and set-aside.

M/S.V.S.Products vs Union of India CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1122

The Karnataka High Court upheld the validity of Section 54(3) of the CGST Act pertaining to the refund of unutilised Input Tax Credit (ITC).

The single bench of Justice S.Sunil Dutta Yadav has relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Union of India v. VKC Footsteps wherein it was held that Parliament engrafted a provision for refund Section 54(3). In enacting such a provision, Parliament is entitled to make policy choices and adopt appropriate classifications, given the latitude which our constitutional jurisprudence allows it in matters involving tax legislation and to provide for exemptions, concessions and benefits on terms, as it considers appropriate.

Radhemani And Sons vs Additional Commissioner (Appeals) Cgst And Central Excise GST Bhawan 2021 TAXSCAN (HC) 132

The Chhattisgarh High Court  remanded the matter to Authority for GST Refund as supply made as inter-State was subsequently held as intra-State.

The single bench of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal held that the circular dated 25.09.2021 interpreting and/or clarifying the word “subsequently held”, it would, therefore, be appropriate to remit the matter back to the concerned appellate authority. The order impugned is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted back to the concerned appellate authority with a direction to decide the same afresh in the light of the circular issued on 25th September, 2021 in accordance with law.

M/s. Bundl Technologies Private Limited vs The Union of India 2021 TAXSCAN (HC) 468

In a major relief to Swiggy, the Karnataka High Court allowed the GST Refund as payment made to the GST Department as a goodwill gesture during an investigation cannot be taken as self-ascertained tax.

The single-judge bench of Justice Sunil Dutta Yadav held that a time limit could be prescribed for completion of the investigation and on failure to do so the court could consider a request for a refund. It must be noticed that the court does not desire to place any sort of fetter on the power of investigation and it would be unwise to impose any kind of time limit, for it is the authority which should be permitted to complete its investigation in a manner as may be desired by it as is permissible.

M/s Appario Retail Private Limited vs The Union of India 2021 TAXSCAN (HC) 475

The Telangana High Court Refund of balance in electronic cash ledger cannot be denied for mere existence of Non Functional alternate Forum on paper.

The division bench of Acting Chief Justice M. S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice T.Vinod Kumar ruled that  the petitioner cannot be compelled to wait for eternity to agitate its claim seeking refund of the amount to which it is entitled to under the statute and also blocking its funds affecting its cash flows, merely because of existence of (non functional) alternate forum/remedy on paper, by not invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

UNION OF INDIA vs BHARTI AIRTEL LTD. & ORS. CITATION: 2021 TAXSCAN (SC) 119

In a major setback to Bharti Airtel, the Supreme Court allowed the GST refund worth Rs. 923 Crores.

The Delhi High Court said, “Indisputably, if the statutorily prescribed returns, GSTR-2 and GSTR-3 had been operationalised by the Centre, the petitioner would have known the correct input tax credit amount available to it in the relevant period, and could have discharged its liability through the tax credit.”

SRC Chemicals Private Limited & Anr. vs Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs through. Dept. of Revenue & Ors. 2021 TAXSCAN (HC) 189

The Bombay High Court directed the GST Authority to issue refund along with the interest as Non-Transmission of Data Relating To Export from GSTN to Indian Customs Electronic Gateway (ICEGATE) is not a valid ground to withhold refund.

The court directed the respondent to ensure refund of Rs.22,92,587/- is paid to petitioner together with interest thereon at the rate of 9% p.a. from the filing date of the petition together with costs in the sum of Rs.25,000/-.

Evertime Overseas Private Limited vs Union of India and ors. 2021 TAXSCAN (HC) 194

The Bombay High Court directed the GST Authority to process the application for IGST refund and pass a reasoned order as  no order was passed.

The division bench headed by the Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice M.S.Karnik held that there is no order or decision on record on the application claiming refund. In this view of the matter, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent to process the application made by the petitioner for refund and pass a reasoned order upon hearing the petitioner. The claim for refund be decided as expeditiously as possible on its own merits and preferably within a period of eight weeks from today. The petitioner to appear before the Competent Authority on October 21, 2021 at 11.00 a.m.

DANTARA JEWELLERS vs THE STATE OF KERALA  2021 TAXSCAN (HC) 509

The Kerala High Court while granting the refund to the taxpayer ruled that all the technical glitches that may occur in between, shall not stand in the way of ultimate relief of the grant of refund to the petitioner.

The single-judge bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas directed the respondent authority to refund the amount of Rs.12,26,064/-, due to the petitioner as a refund, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

All the technical glitches that may occur in between, shall not stand in the way of ultimate relief of the grant of refund to the petitioner as otherwise the sanctity of the whole scheme of section 129 of the State Goods and Services Tax Act will lose the confidence of the assessees to deposit the amount as contemplated under section 129 of the State Goods and Services Tax Act, will be affected.

Platinum Holdings Private Limited vs Additional Commissioner of GST & Central Excise  2021 TAXSCAN (HC) 510

The Madras High court while allowing the refund of Goods and Service Tax (GST) to the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) held that any entities can file for Refund under section 54 of CGST Act.

The single judge bench of justice Anitha Sumanth held that the statutory scheme for refund under the CGST Act and State GST Acts, permits any entity to seek a refund of taxes, including an SEZ. It was observed that the provisions of Section 54 of the CGST Act, providing for a refund, apply to any person who claims such refund and who makes an application for the grant of the same.

M/S Jain Distillery Private Limited vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others   2021 TAXSCAN (HC) 512

The Allahabad High Court directed the refund of Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax (UPVAT) on Extra Neutral Alcohol (ENA) as the State lost its legislative competence to impose the tax.

The division bench of Justice Naheed Ara Moonis and Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh declared that the State lost its legislative competence to enact laws, to impose a tax on sales of ENA, upon the enactment of the 101st Constitution Amendment.

AHINSHA CHEMICALS LTD vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS  2021 TAXSCAN (HC) 219

The Gauhati High Court directed the GST Commissioner to Consider an application claiming for a special rate to be fixed based on add-ons made to goods manufactured.

The single judge bench of Justice Achintya Malla Bujor Baru noted that where the necessity for making of a request for fixation of the special rate for the value addition to the manufactured goods may not have occasioned earlier, we deem it appropriate that the Principal Commissioner of GST, Guwahati decides the application of the petitioner dated 28.09.2020 on its own merit as regards the claim for fixation of a special rate to the value addition to the manufactured goods of the given financial year.

Jagat Janani Services vs Goods & Service Tax Council and Others  2021 TAXSCAN (HC) 220

The Orissa High Court directed the GST department to refund Service Tax Recovered in excess of the amount approved by the resolution plan.

The division bench is headed by Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice B.P. Routray directed the respondent to issue, calculate and refund to the Petitioner the excess service tax paid by it by acknowledging that the Petitioner is entitled to receive only 20.5% of the admitted claim amount which works out to Rs.3,71,87,750/-. The excess service tax so calculated will be refunded to the Petitioner in accordance with the extant rules within a period of eight weeks.

FLEXI CAPS AND POLYMERS PVT LTD vs COMMISSIONER, CGST & CENTRAL EXCISE-INDORE   2021 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 183

In a Relief to Flexi Caps, the Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) sanctioned refund of Countervailing Duty (CVD) and Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid under Section 142 of GST.

The Coram of Judicial Member Rachna Gupta observed that the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) was filed by the Department not under the erstwhile law but under the GST Act, 2017. The appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) was not maintainable under GST Act for a refund application which was filed under the erstwhile law. The appeal as such was not maintainable.

M/S. UPS INVERTER.COM & ANR. vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR.   2021 TAXSCAN (HC) 544

The Delhi High Court held that the assertions cannot be verified in absence of documents like shipping bills for which Goods and Service Tax (GST) refund is claimed.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Navin Chawla directed the respondent’s authority to carry out a verification exercise of the claim made by the petitioners within 12 weeks from today and submit a report to this Court. The petitioners shall be at liberty to file the relevant documents as may be called for by the jurisdictional authority in support of its claim. In case the respondents find the claim of the petitioners to be correct, the refund shall be processed by the respondents without awaiting further orders from this Court in accordance with the law.

Union of India & Ors. vs VKC Footsteps India Pvt Ltd. CITATION:   2021 TAXSCAN (SC) 128

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules 2017 which pertains to Good and Service Tax (GST) Refund of Inverted Duty on Input Services.

The division bench of Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice MR Shah observed that if the provision of law is explicitly clear, language unambiguous and interpretation leaves no room for more than one construction, it has to be read as it is. In that case, the provision of law has to be tested on the touchstone of the relevant provisions of law or of the Constitution and it is not open to a court to invoke the doctrine of “reading down” with a view to save the statute from declaring it ultra vires by carrying it to the point of “perverting the purposes of the statute.

MEDICAL BUREAU vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DELHI NORTH & ANR CITATION: 2021 TAXSCAN (HC) 596

The Delhi High Court directed the Goods and Service Tax (GST) Authority to decide the Refund Application of the Medical Bureau within 6 Weeks.

The division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Naveen Chawla found that the Petitioner’s refund applications being GST RFD-01A have not been disposed of to date.

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. vs AAWADKRUPA PLASTOMECH PVT. LTD. 2021 TAXSCAN (HC) 280

A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Gujarat High Court where the High Court directed the Goods and Service Tax Authorities to immediately sanction refund towards IGST paid in respect to goods exported made via shipping bills.

The division bench of the High Court while allowing the refunds said that if the refund of the principal amount is not sanctioned and actually paid to the writ applicant within the period of six weeks from the date of the receipt of this order, then interest would start accumulating at the rate of 9% and the amount shall be paid.

Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India   2021 TAXSCAN (HC) 621

The Rajasthan High Court issued the to the State Government and the Central Government on plea challenging Restriction of Refund of Accumulated Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Input Service under Rule 89 (5) of CGST Rules.

The division bench of Chief Justice Indrajit Mahanty and Justice Satish Kumar Sharma appreciated the arguments made by Adv. Sanjay Jhawar and Rahul Lakhwani and issued notice to the Central Government and Rajasthan Government.

M/s Shree Mahesh Oil Products vs Union Of India  2021 TAXSCAN (HC) 627

The Rajasthan High Court allowed the refund of Integrated Goods and Service Tax (IGST) on Ocean Freights.

The division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Sabina directed the respondent to sanction the refund of the IGST paid by the assessee pursuant to Entry No. 10 of the Notification No. 10/2017-IGST dated 28.06.2017 declared to be ultra vires in the case of Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd.IGST refund division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Sabina directed the respondent to sanction the refund of the IGST paid by the assessee pursuant to Entry No. 10 of the Notification No. 10/2017-IGST dated 28.06.2017 declared to be ultra vires in the case of Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd.

MMD Heavy Machinery (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs The Assistant Commissioner 2021 TAXSCAN (HC) 323

The Madras High Court directed the assessee to work out the remedy so as to avail refund of ITC lying unutilized transitions by filing Trans-1. The Court expressed a view that the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Laws shall be considered to decide such matters, not the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The single-judge bench of Justice C.Saravanan observed that the fate of such input tax credit lying unutilized is to be examined in the light of the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Rules, 2002, CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and the relevant notifications.

BNP Paribas Global Securities Operations Private Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise 2021 TAXSCAN (HC) 681

The Madras High Court allowed the benefit of Cenvat refund to the taxpayer as the credit of duty was not able to be used after the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax ( GST).

The Coram of C.Saravanan while considering the fact that the petitioner has also not been able to utilize the credit of duty under the provisions of GST which came to be effected from July 1, 2017 and held that legitimate export incentives cannot be denied to the petitioner.

Tvl.Mehar Tex vs The Commissioner of Central GST CITATION:  2021 TAXSCAN (HC) 682

The Madras High Court ruled that refund of Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be denied for technical glitches in GSTN software.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice G.R.Swaminathan set aside the order rejecting refund claim of CGST and IGST of the assessee wherein, the entire refund liability of Input Tax Credit got auto-populated under a single head i.e. State Goods and Services Tax instead of SGST, Central Goods and Service Tax and Integrated Goods and Services Tax.

M/s.Chaizup Beverages LLP vs Assistant Commissioner   2021 TAXSCAN (HC) 685

The Madras High Court while allowing the refund ruled that the circular can not deny the benefit offered under Statutory Provisions.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Anita Sumanth said that it is clear from a reading of Section 54(3) that the petitioner is entitled to one or the other of two benefits, namely duty draw back or Input Tax Credit. Thus, an option has been extended to an assessee engaged in zero rated sale to either claim the benefit of duty drawback or the benefit of refund of ITC.

Deputy Commercial Tax Officer vs CGST Act CITATION: 2021 TAXSCAN (HC) 680

The Telangana High Court directed the Authority to Refund the amount paid towards GST and Penalty on the pretext of malpractice, violation of e-waybill rules.

The division bench of Justices M.S.Ramachandra Rao and T.Vinod Kumar held that the order of detention in Form GST MOV-06 passed under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 by the respondent is set aside.

BNP Paribas Global Securities Operations Private Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise 2021 TAXSCAN (HC) 400

The Madras High Court directed the GST Authorities to allow the benefit of refund claim as legitimate export incentives can not be denied.

The single judge bench of C.Saravanan held that the petitioner has also not been able to utilize the credit of duty under the provisions of GST which came to be effected from July 1, 2017,legitimate export incentives cannot be denied to the petitioner.

M/s.Sri Nandhi Dall Mills India Private Limited vs Senior Intelligence Officer   2021 TAXSCAN (HC) 683

The Madras High Court directed the GST Department to refund Rs.2 crores paid at the time of investigation.

The single-judge bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth said that the tabulation of payments, in this case, is joint, the petitioner offering a sum of Rupees Seven Crores (since retracted) and the Officer to ascertain the balance. This exercise has not been carried out and, with this, the requirement of ‘ascertainment’ under Section 74(5), fails.

Atibir Industries Co. Ltd. vs The Union of India  2021 TAXSCAN (HC) 684

The Jharkhand High Court directed the GST Authority either to open a GSTN portal enabling the application for refund in GST RFD-01 or to manually accept the application for refund.

The division bench of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary directed the respondents to either to open GSTN portal enabling the petitioner to file its application for refund in GST RFD-01 or to manually accept the application for refund of the petitioner pertaining to the period 2017-18 and 2018-19 in respect of its claim for refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit pertaining to compensation cess within a period of one month.

AAWADKRUPA PLASTOMECH PVT. LTD. vs UNION OF INDIA 2020 TAXSCAN (HC) 265

The Gujarat High Court directed the Goods and Service Tax Authorities to immediately sanction refund towards IGST paid in respect to goods exported made via shipping bills.

The division bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Ilesh V. Vora, while allowing the refunds said that if the refund of the principal amount is not sanctioned and actually paid to the writ applicant within the period of six weeks from the date of the receipt of this order, then interest would start accumulating at the rate of 9% and the amount shall be paid.

Soura Natural Energy Solutions India Pvt Ltd vs Union Of India CITATION: 2020 TAXSCAN (HC) 266

The Kerala High court ordered the GST department to clarify regarding the condition to apply for Refund after filing NIL refund claim in FORM GST RFD-01A/RFD-01.

The single-judge bench of Justice Amit Rawal prima facie found the substance in the submission of Mr. Shameem Ahammed and sanguine of the fact that the Department of Revenue would come out with certain clarification. Therefore, the court posted the matter after three weeks.

LM Wind Power Blades India Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra and ors.  2020 TAXSCAN (HC) 175

The Bombay High Court directed the respondent authority to refund an amount of Rs.4.73 Crores covered by 8 encashed bank guarantees with interest to the petitioner, LM Wind Power Blades India.

The division bench of Justice Abhay Ahuja and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan directed the Respondent authority to refund the amount of Rs.4,73,26,512 covered by the 8 encashed bank guarantees with applicable statutory interest thereon to the petitioner within a period of 4 weeks.

Tvl.Transtonnelstroy Afcons Joint venture vs Union of India   2020 TAXSCAN (HC) 181

The Madras High Court while dismissing the plea of the petitioners challenging the denial of unutilised Input Tax Credit (ITC) refund on ‘input services’ under ‘inverted duty structure’.

The divisional bench headed by Chief Justice A.P. Sahi held that Section 54(3)(ii) does not infringe Article 14. “Refund is a statutory right and the extension of the benefit of refund only to the unutilised credit that accumulates on account of the rate of tax on input goods being higher than the rate of tax on output supplies by excluding unutilised input tax credit that accumulated on account of input services is a valid classification and a valid exercise of legislative power,” the court said.

In Re: M/s Gnanaganga Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha CITATION: 2020 TAXSCAN (AAR) 125

The Karnataka Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) ruled that layout maintenance services for members would be liable to GST, however, GST is not applicable to the money which is remaining unutilized, refundable to members.

The two-member bench of M.P. Ravi Prasad and Mashood ur Rehman Farooqui ruled that layout maintenance services for members would be liable to GST. Where money is collected upfront and the balance remaining unutilized refundable to members, only the amount utilized for supply of service would be liable and not the entire deposit made upfront. Liability would be at the time of utilization of proceeds towards maintenance services.

In Re: M/s Prragathi Steel Castings pvt ltd CITATION: 2020 TAXSCAN (AAR) 126

The Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR), Karnataka ruled that 12% GST applicable to manufacturing and supplying of the Railway parts including knuckle, toggle, lock, yoke, etc.

The Authority consists of members Dr. Ravi Prasad M.P. and Mashoodur Rehman Farooqui while considering the application held that the applicable rate of GST on the impugned goods is 5% in terms of entry number 241 of Schedule I to the Notification No.1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated June 28, 2017, till October 29, 2019, is now replaced by entry number 205 G of Schedule II and now the rate of GST is 12%,  with no refund of unutilized input tax credit.

VKC FOOTSTEPS INDIA PVT. LTD vs UNION OF INDIA & 2 other(s)  2020 TAXSCAN (HC) 255

A two-judge bench of the Gujarat High Court has categorically held that the Explanation (a) to Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules which denies the refund of “unutilized input tax” paid on “input services” as part of “input tax credit” accumulated on account of inverted duty structure is ultra vires the provision of Section 54(3) of the CGST Act, 2017.

The division bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Bharghav D. Karia pronounced the order in the Group of 10 Matters that net ITC in the formula given under Rule 89(5) of CGST Rules 2017 will include the value of input services also. In effect, the assessees will be eligible to claim a refund of input services in case of an inverted duty structure.

JIAN INTERNATIONAL vs COMMISSIONER OF DELHI GOODS AND SERVICES TAX   2020 TAXSCAN (HC) 267

The Delhi High Court said that the officers have no right to find a deficiency in the refund application after 15 days.

The two-judge bench of Justice Manmohan and Sanjeev Narula held that the respondent had lost the right to point out any deficiency, in the petitioner’s refund application, at this belated stage. Accordingly, the Court directed the respondent to pay to the petitioner the refund along with interest in accordance with law within two weeks.

M/s. Ruchi Soya Industries Limited vs Union of India 2020 TAXSCAN (HC) 268

The Madras High Court, while allowing a petition, directed the Custom Authority to refund the entire excess amount paid as enhanced under protest, including the IGST amount duty within two months.

The division bench headed by Chief Justice A.P. Sahi, while allowing the petition, directed the Custom Authority to refund the entire excess amount paid as enhanced under protest, including the IGST amount duty within 2 months.

TEAM HR SERVICES PRIVATE LTD. vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR CITATION: 2020 TAXSCAN (HC) 269

The High Court of Delhi, while issuing the writ of Mandamus, directed the Assistant Commissioner, GST to refund the amount with interest @6% per annum on or before July 15, 2020. However, if the said amount is not refunded by 15th July 2020, the rate of interest with effect from 1st August 2020 shall stand enhanced to 12% per annum.

The division bench consisting of Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Asha Menon while issuing the writ of Mandamus, directed the Assistant Commissioner, GST to refund the amount with interest @6% per annum on or before July 15, 2020. However, if the said amount is not refunded by 15th July 2020, the rate of interest with effect from 1st August 2020 shall stand enhanced to 12% per annum.

Gaurav vs State CITATION: 2020 TAXSCAN (HC) 270

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed the bail application of the Chartered Accountant (CA), who is accused of creating bogus firms to grab GST refunds.

The single-judge bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta allowed the bail application of the Chartered Accountant (CA), who is accused of creating bogus firms to grab GST  refunds.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates