High Court of Madras7 July 2026

SYA Homes v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)

For assessee

WP NO. 23463 OF 2026

The ruling in brief

Where registered person inadvertently paid tax under IGST instead of splitting payment into CGST and SGST, and entire tax liability stood discharged within prescribed period, IGST paid was to be appropriated towards correct heads without requirement of fresh payment and re-refund, as statutory refund scheme applies only to inter-State to intra-State reclassification and not mere wrong-head allocation

Provisions considered

Section 77 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Rule 89 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017/ Tamil Nadu 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

GSTAT Raipur24 Sept 2026

For revenue

Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner State Tax Chhatisgarh

Where manufacturer claimed refund of unutilised ITC due to inverted duty structure and was sanctioned amount exceeding entitlement under Section 54 read with Rule 89(5), such payment qualified as refund and, if in excess, constituted an 'erroneous refund' recoverable under Section 73, without exclusion based on ITC origin, as confirmed by subsequent rule and circular. GST: Where assessee received refund on inverted-duty structure via RFD-06 order and department did not appeal or seek revision, initiation of recovery proceedings for erroneous refund under Section 73 was permissible as Section 73 operates independently with its own notice and limitation, and non-invocation of appeal or revision mechanisms does not bar such recovery action. GST: Where appellant received erroneous refund of Rs. 90.35 lakhs on inverted-duty structure and paid back principal amount during recovery proceedings without paying interest, interest under Section 50 at 18 percent per annum for delayed period was legally leviable as interest is compensatory, and mere payment of principal did not conclude liability or proceedings under Section 73

Karnataka High Court3 Jun 2026

For assesseeRemanded

GR Tech Services (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Where registered person paid IGST on transaction initially considered inter- State which was later found to be intra-State requiring CGST/KGST, original authority erred in demanding additional tax, interest, and penalty without proper adjustment or refund, necessitating quashing of demand orders and restoration for fresh adjudication in compliance with statutory provisions and refund rules

Delhi High Court29 Sept 2026

For revenue

Dhruv Medicos (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner

Where petitioner distributor of medicines challenged show cause notice and appropriation of amount deposited during audit on grounds of coercion, limitation, computation, and jurisdiction, since statutory adjudication had commenced and SCN did not finally determine liability, all objections including voluntariness of payment and other contentions could be raised before Adjudicating Authority and interference at SCN stage was unwarranted

Related rulings

GSTAT Raipur24 Sept 2026

For revenue

SYA Homes v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

SYA Homes v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Read the full analysis

Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner State Tax Chhatisgarh

GR Tech Services (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Dhruv Medicos (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner