Madras High Court
For assessee
Case-law directory
Every ruling, in plain sight.
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
Case-law directory
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
4 rulings found
Madras High Court
Where refund application was treated as time barred and rejected by issuance of deficiency memo at acknowledgement stage under Rule 90(3), since limitation is not a curable deficiency, proposed rejection required show cause notice under Rule 92(3) and deficiency memo on ground of limitation was not permissible, allowing liberty only for show cause notice on rejection grounds
Patna High Court
Where a works contractor's claim for refund of excess cash ledger balance was rejected citing ineligible input tax credit and prior-year dues, but no proceedings under Section 54(11) were initiated, withholding of refund was unwarranted and Commissioner was required to issue a notice, provide hearing and pass a reasoned order under Section 54(11) during pendency of appellate proceedings
Kerala High Court
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
Gujarat High Court
Where assessee challenged restriction of refund of unutilized ITC under Rule 89(5) to inputs only excluding input services, it was held that amendment to Rule 89(5) by Notification No. 14/2022-CT, providing a revised formula for refund of unutilized ITC including input services, was curative and classificatory with retrospective effect; accordingly, RFD-03 deficiency memos were quashed and refund claims were directed to be processed under amended Rule 89(5) read with Section 54