Stay updated
Exporters flagged delays in EPCG and Advance Authorisation approvals, difficulties in updating Importer-Exporter Code profiles, customs clearance backlogs, digital signatures on online portals, and pending Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) refunds.
BHARAT METAL EXCHANGE LTD. wrote letter on 22.06.2026 to The Chairman, CBIC, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kanika Exports held that the relevant date for computing limitation period of two years under Section 54 for refund of unutilised ITC (including exports without payment of tax and inverted duty structure)
Federation of Industrial and Commercial Organization (FICO) has written to Finance Minister Harpal Singh Cheema to press for release of GST refunds, flagging a delay in the process.
The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Central Taxes & Ors. held that the two-year limitation period under Section 54 of the CGST Act
The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of N H Associates held that refund of GST paid on cotton seed oil cake cannot be denied where the product is exempt as cattle feed under Notification No. 02/2017-CT (Rate) dated June 20, 2017, and the issue stands settled by a coordinate bench decision.
Until now, while filing refund applications under specific categories involving accumulated Input Tax Credit (ITC), taxpayers were uploading Annexure-B in a PDF format, in terms of extant guidelines.
In a bid to make the GST refund system more automated, the government is introducing an Annexure-B offline utility in place of the earlier PDF-based Annexure-B in Form GST RFD-01, making the refund filing process more streamlined, structured and system-driven.
The Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu in the case of Bharat Oil Traders held that amendment to Explanation (2)(e) Section 54 CGST Act, 2017 w.e.f. February 1, 2019 substituting “relevant date” for unutilized ITC refund u/s 54(3)(ii) inverted duty structure from “end of financial year in which claim arises” to “due date for furnishing return u/s 39 for period claim arises” operates prospectively and cannot retrospectively divest vested rights accrued pre-amendment.
The Hon’ble Orissa High Court in the case of Rajendra Narayan Mohanty held that refund claimed in respect of tax paid erroneously or under mistaken notion cannot be denied solely on the ground of limitation stipulated in Section 54 of the CGST/OGST Act, as the matter falls within the ambit of Article 265 of the Constitution of India, which mandates that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law.
