Stay updated
The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) on Tuesday booked a sales tax officer (STO) for allegedly allowing fake Goods and Services Tax (GST) refunds of ₹4.69 crore to a company without verification. The irregularities came to the fore following an internal inquiry by the state GST department.
The Hon’ble Madras High Court of Madurai Bench in the case of M/s Modern India Products allowed refund claim by the assessee of the IGST refund for exports that would qualify as zero -rated supply. While Circular No. 37/2018-Customs dated October 09, 2018 (“the Circular”) relied upon by Standing Counsel to state that if duty drawback is claimed, refund of IGST amount cannot be sought. The Court relied on the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court case wherein it was held that the Circular cannot prevail over Rule 96 of the CGST Rules.
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Raiden Infotech India (P.) Ltd. restored the Refund Application where the deficiency memo in Form GST RFD-03 was not issued to the Assessee, and the order rejecting the refund application was to be set aside. However, since the Assessee failed to avail the opportunity granted to raise contentions in response to the SCN, the Assessee had to pay the cost.
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in M/s Chetna Steel Tubes (P.) Ltd. dismissed the writ petitions challenging a circular that directed tax liability creation under Section 129 of the CGST Act and held that tax collected at the detention stage can be claimed as a refund if excess tax is paid in regular returns.
The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Tirth Agro Technology Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. allowed the writ petitions seeking GST refund under Inverted Duty Structure based on Section 54(3) of the CGST Act read with Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules. The Assessee filed a rectification application for differential refund as per the amended formula which was rejected by issuance of SCN on the ground that refund as per the old formula was already granted to the Assessee…
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case Tvl. Orange Sorting Machines (India) (P.) Ltd. allowed the writ petition and held that the SCN issued, and order passed without providing required particulars based on which refund has been rejected is void
The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kashi Exports disposed of the petition where the Assessee was exporting goods under LUT was paid refund of unutilized accumulated ITC as per the Rules 89(4)of the CGST Rules, during pendency of petition, clarification issued on manner of calculation of Adjusted Total Turnover consequent to Explanation (c) inserted in Rule 89(4) of the CGST Rules. Hence, the refund application was to be reconsidered.
Refund application for excess GST paid by recipient on construction services not maintainable; HC dismissed writ petition
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case Tvl. Orange Sorting Machines (India) (P.) Ltd. quashed the impugned order as the Department failed to provide a breakup of the amount demanded, thereby holding that the refund rejection order is not proper when required information for defending the claim made is not provided to the Applicant.
The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of H K Enterprise quashes rejection of refund application of IGST paid on ocean freight filed subsequent to Notification No.10/2017-IT (Rate) dated June 28, 2017 being struck down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohit Minerals case on ground of time bar. Assessee’s refund claim for the unutilized GST paid on Ocean Freight under the RCM for June 2018 was rejected because it was found to be filed after the statutory two-year period from the relevant date, following judgment in Mohit Minerals case. Accordingly, it was held that the application for refund having been filed within a reasonable time thereafter, cannot be held to be time barred and the writ petition was allowed by quashing the orders.