High Court of Kerala20 August 2026

AVT Mccormick Ingredients (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India

For revenue

WP (C) NO. 12964 OF 2019

The ruling in brief

Where exporter claimed refund of unutilised SGST from transitional credit after migration from KVAT but failed to produce GST TRAN-1 or proof that credit was available in Electronic Credit Ledger as on 01.07.2017, refund was rightly rejected and writ remedy was not available since statutory appellate remedies were bypassed and writ was filed belatedly

Provisions considered

Section 54, read with section 140, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Rule 86, read with rules 89 and 117, of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017/Kerala State 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

Provisions considered

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

AVT Mccormick Ingredients (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

AVT Mccormick Ingredients (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India

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