High Court of Kerala10 July 2026

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

For assessee

WP (C) NO. 21135 OF 2026

The ruling in brief

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

Provisions considered

Section 54 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Kerala Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Rule 89, read with rule 90, of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017/Kerala Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017

This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.

The ruling in brief

Related rulings

Supreme Court21 Sept 2026

For revenue

Matrix Cellular (international) Services (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner, State Tax, Delhi

SLP dismissed against review petition of High Court holding that where assessee withdrew refund application after issuance of deficiency memo and later sought interest for that disputed period in review petition on ground of error apparent, as no error or mistake was found in earlier judgment denying interest for that period, review petition was not maintainable and not considered on merits

GSTAT Chandigarh24 Sept 2026

For assessee

Shruti Bansal v. Solitaire Pharmacia (P.) Ltd

Where exporter claimed refund of unutilised ITC for period based on invoices issued for export supplies under bond/LUT, turnover for refund was determined by invoice date within relevant period, not actual export date, so denial on ground of subsequent export was unwarranted when export stood established and invoices fell in period, making refund allowable. GST: Where exporter claimed refund of unutilised ITC for export without payment of tax and department alleged minor inclusion of ineligible credits in Net ITC computation under rule 89(4), such ineligible ITC did not materially impact maximum refund, which remained higher than amount sanctioned, so refund grant required no disturbance and departmental appeal was dismissed

GSTAT Ranchi23 Sept 2026

For assessee

Pramod Chandan Surin v. Shivam Iron & Steel Co. Ltd

Where manufacturer-exporter of mild steel billets exported goods under LUT without payment of tax causing accumulation of Cess ITC, refund of Net ITC must reflect credit availed and attributable to refund period only, so reversal of earlier period credit subsequently booked could not reduce Net ITC for relevant period, and departmental circular could not override statutory formula

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

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

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

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Matrix Cellular (international) Services (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner, State Tax, Delhi

Shruti Bansal v. Solitaire Pharmacia (P.) Ltd

Pramod Chandan Surin v. Shivam Iron & Steel Co. Ltd

Read the full analysis