High Court of Karnataka24 August 2026

Super Wave Technology (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax

For assesseeRemanded

WRIT PETITION NO. 13162 OF 2026 (T-RES)

The ruling in brief

Where petitioner imported X-Ray inspection system prior to GST and claimed transitional ITC through GSTR-3B based on Central advice but refund was denied citing closure of TRAN-1 window and jurisdiction, as refund was never considered on merits, petitioner's claim required decision by Central authority, thus, petitioner was to be granted liberty to represent before respondent for decision on refund entitlement based on transitional credit

Provisions considered

Section 54, read with section 140, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Rule 117 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017/Karnataka 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

Super Wave Technology (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Super Wave Technology (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax

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