| Notification
No. |
Subject |
|
Notification
No.14/2021-Central Tax, dt. 01.05.2021 |
Seeks to extend specified compliances falling
between 15.04.2021 to 30.05.2021 till 31.05.2021 in exercise of powers under
section 168A of CGST Act |
|
Notification No. 46/2020-Central Tax dt.
09.06.2020 |
Seeks to extend period to pass order under
Section 54(7) of CGST Act. |
|
Notification No.
3/2019-Compensation Cess (Rate) dt.
30.09.2019 |
Seeks to
disallow the refund of compensation cess in case of inverted duty
structure for tobacco and manufactured tobacco substitutes |
|
Notification No.
20/2018-Central Tax (Rate), dt. 26.07.2018 |
Extension of due date for filing of application for refund under
section 55 by notified agencies |
|
Notification No. 44/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dt. 14.11.2017 |
Expand the List of supply where no
refund of unutilized ITC is allowed |
|
Notification No.
49/2017-Central Tax dt. 18.10.2017 |
Notifies
the evidences produced for claiming refund by the supplier of deemed
export i.e. (i) acknowledgment by PO or tax invoice duly signed by
recipient of EOU. (II) undertaking by recipient that no ITC has been
availed by him and undertaking that he shall not claimed refund in
respect of such supplies. |
|
Notification No. 11/2017-Integrated
Tax dt.
13.10.2017 |
Seeks to
cross-empower State Tax officers who are authorized to be the proper
officers for the purposes of section 54 |
|
Notification No. 39/2017-Central Tax
dt.
13.10.2017 |
Seeks to
cross-empower State Tax officers who are authorized to be the proper
officers for the purposes of section 54 or section 55 of the said
Acts shall act as PO for processing and grant of refund under CGST
Act. |
|
Notification
No. 37/2017-Central Tax dt. 04.10.2017 |
Notification on extension of
facility of LUT to all exporters issued. |
|
Notification
No. 15/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dt. 28.06.2017 |
Notify
that supplies relating to Construction services specified in
sub-item (b) of item 5 of Schedule II is not eligible for refund of
unutilized ITC under CGST Act |
|
Notification No. 05/2017-Central
Tax (Rate) dt. 28.06.2017 |
Notifies
supplies of goods with HSN in respect of which no refund of
unutilised input tax credit shall be allowed under section 54 (3) |
|
Notification No. 06/2017-Integrated Tax
dt. 28.06.2017 |
Prescribe rate of interest on delay payment of tax u/s 50(1) @18% ,
undue and excess claim of ITC or undue or excess reduction in Output
Tax liab u/s 50(3) @ 24%, where refund is withheld @6 u/s 54(12)
,refund of tax u/s 56 and refund arise on order of AA or AT and not
paid wit in 60 days @ 9% |
|
Notification No. 05/2017-Integrated
Tax (Rate) dt. 28.06.2017 |
Supplies of
goods in respect of which no refund of unutilised input tax credit shall
be allowed |
|
Notification No. 13/2017-Central Tax,
dt. 28.06.2017 |
Prescribe rate of interest on delay payment of tax u/s 50(1) @18% ,
undue and excess claim of ITC or undue or excess reduction in Output
Tax liab u/s 50(3) @ 24%, where refund is withheld @6 u/s 54(12)
,refund of tax u/s 56 and refund arise on order of AA or AT and not
paid wit in 60 days @ 9% |
|
Authority |
One liner |
|
2025(04)LCX0432
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashirwad Inds. |
Non-service of notice vitiates the
appellate order; natural justice must be upheld. |
|
2025(04)LCX0196
Madras High Court
Prakash Impex |
Refund claim should be considered in
view of representation dated 03.10.2022 filed by the assessee |
|
2025(04)LCX0128
Jharkhand High Court
Tata Steel Ltd |
Refund rejection and appellate orders
based on grounds that are not supported by section 54 of CGST Act,
Rule 89(2) of CGST Rules and Circular 125/44/2019-GST, were quashed |
|
2025(04)LCX0101
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Alstom Transport India Limited |
Assessee being the registered person in
GST, entitled to refund of unutilized ITC arising out of IGST paid
on export of services as non-mention of the categories of supply in
the application form cannot preclude grant of refund. |
|
2025(04)LCX0093
Hyderabad Tribunal
Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. |
IGST paid manually via TR6 challan due
to short payment of CVD on imported goods is not eligible for refund
as Section 142(3) of the CGST Act does not grant a vested right to
refund of duties like CVD and SAD when these have been paid due
to non-fulfillment of export obligations
|
|
2025(02)LCX0366
Delhi High Court
Truth Fashion |
Mere decision taken by commissioner to
assail a refund order would not qualify Section 54(11) of CGST Act
and cannot ipso facto or automatically result in the principal order
being placed in abeyance. |
|
2025(02)LCX0357
Gujarat High Court
Patanjali Foods Limited |
Court struck down para 2 of the Circular
No. 181/13/2022-GST dated 10.11.2022 as discriminatory and ultra
vires, holding that the assessee's refund application, filed within
the statutory period, cannot be denied due to the notification's
prospective effect. |
|
2025(01)LCX0491
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Priyanka Refineries Pvt. Ltd. |
Court struck down the circular no.
181/13/2022-GST, because it wrongly restricted refund applications
for ITC, and clarified that such applications could still be made
u/s 54 of the CGST Act |
|
2024(10)LCX0396
Gujarat High Court
Ascent Meditech Ltd. |
Amendment to Rule 89(5) of the GST Act
is clarificatory in nature and applicable retrospectively, allowing
for refunds to be claimed by assessees who filed applications within
the prescribed two-year period. |
|
2024(08)LCX0507
Karnataka High Court
ITD Cemindia JV |
Refund for unutilized ITC was allowed,
as Metro-related works contracts falls under clause 6(a) of Schedule
II of the CGST Act |
|
2024(09)LCX0563
Karnataka High Court
Amazon Development Centre India Private
Limited |
The court correctly applied the IGST Act
and CBIC Circular to classify the services as export, not
intermediary.
|
|
2024(03)LCX0288
Kerala High Court
M Trans Corporation |
Assessee claimed ITC in wrong head, did
not get refund of such ITC, as application is not filed within the
period of two years from the last date of filing the returns for the
relevant year. |
|
2024(01)LCX0544
Gujarat High Court
Gujarat State Police Housing Corporation
Limited |
HC ruled a refund claim for tax paid under a
mistake of law can be processed, despite being filed after the two-year
limit prescribed u/s 54of the GST Act |
|
2024(01)LCX0328
Calcutta High Court
Sunil Kumar Poddar |
If a tax payer possesses the
valid shipping bills, but for some reason may not have been able to upload the
same in Form GSTR 1 at the time of claiming refund, the law should not be so
rigid so as not to permit the claimant to rectify the mistake that has
been committed inadvertently. |
|
2024(01)LCX0275
Kerala High Court
Malabar Fuel Corporation |
Refund of credit accumulated to a dealer as
a result of higher tax on inputs than the output supplies, even when the
input and output supplies are one and the same |
|
2024(01)LCX0172
Madras High Court
Tulip Nilgiris Exports Private Limited |
Assessee can club refund
claims pertaining to more than one financial year. |
|
2024(01)LCX0129
Madras High Court
VSM Weavess India Private Limited |
Refund claim for zero rated
supplies does not disentitle the assessee from claiming a refund for
unutilized ITC arising from the inverted duty structure. |
|
2023(12)LCX0012
Delhi High Court
Grapes Digital Pvt. Ltd |
|
|
2023(05)LCX0032
Delhi High Court
Alex Tour And Travel Private Limited |
Revenue can not ignore an order passed by
the appellate authority on the ground that it proposes to appeal the
said order |
|
2022(02)LCX0052
Gujarat High Court
MESSERS FILATEX INDIA LTD |
|
|
2022(01)LCX0030
Delhi High Court
National Internet Exchange of India |
|
|
2022(01)LCX0127
Bombay High Court
R. K. Copper and Alloy LLP |
|
|
2022(03)LCX0193
Calcutta High Court
Shivaco Associates & Anr. |
Refund of unutilized ITC
on inverted duty structure allowed even input and output supply is same
irrespective of circular 135/05/2020. |
|
2021(01)LCX0103
Rajasthan High Court
Mega Jewels Private
Limited |
|
|
2021(02)LCX0111
Allahabad High Court
Bushrah Export House
|
Refund cannot be withheld
without communicating the reasons in Part B of FORM GST RD-07 u/s 54(7)
read with Rule 92(2) |
|
2021(02)LCX0198
Karnataka High Court
Asiatic Clinical Research Pvt. Ltd
|
|
|
2021(08)LCX0076
Jharkhand High Court
Prakash Mica Exports
Private Limited |
|
|
2021(08)LCX0182
Madras High Court
Platinum Holdings Private Limited
|
Section 54 permits any
entity to seek a refund of taxes, including an SEZ |
|
2021(09)LCX0011
Supreme Court
VKC Footsteps India Pvt. Ltd
|
Explanation (a) to Rule 89 is
not ultra vires
to Section 54(3). |
|
2021(11)LCX0073
Bombay High Court
Laxmi Organic Industries Ltd.
|
Circular 125/44/201
cannot affect or control the statutory rule, i.e., rule 97A so far as it
creates a condition that the refund application has to be filed online
only |
|
2020(12)LCX0234
Gujarat High Court
Comsol Energy Private Limited |
Refund of IGST paid on ocean freight
under RCM is allowed with 6% interest stating that the statutory
time limit u/s 54 of the CGST Act does not apply to refunds of duty
paid under mistake of law in view of section 17 of limitation Act
and Article 265 of the Constitution of India. |
|
2020(11)LCX0093
Sikkim High Court
Sun Pharma Laboratories
Limited |
Appellant authority to
grant an opportunity to petitioner as to why refund should be allowed . |
|
2020(09)LCX0058
Madras High Court
Tvl. Transtonnelstroy Afcons
Joint venture |
Restriction u/r 89(5) for refund of ITC of
input services is not violatig article 14 of constitution. |
|
2020(07)LCX0014
Delhi High Court
Medical Burea
|
Matter remanded for denial
of refund of ITC under Section 54(3) CGST for goods exported through
Foreign Post Offices |
|
2020(07)LCX0013
Delhi High Court
Ess Aar Automotive Pvt. Ltd.
|
Payment of interest in
accordance with Section 56 and Rule 94 as well as para 34 of Circular
No.125/44/2019-GST dated 18th November, 2019 |
|
2020(03)LCX0144
Gujarat High Court
Britannia Industries
Limited |
SEZ entitled to claim refund
of the IGST lying in the Electronic Credit Ledger as there is no
specific supplier who can claim the refund under the provisions of the
CGST Act and the CGST Rules as ITC is distributed by the ISD |
|
2020(11)LCX0095
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Vinod Oil and General
Mills |
HC directs to process
refund application which was on hold due to unavoidable reasons. |
|
2019(03)LCX0031
Kerala high Court
Gireesh Babu Alambadan
|
Directed to take a decision on request for
refund of CGST and SGST where paid in place of IGST within a period of
one week |
|
2019(03)LCX0026
Punjab High Court
Datawind Innovations
Pvt. Ltd. |
Competent Authority directed to take action
on refund applications but no action has so far been taken |
|
2018(05)LCX0035
Gujarat High Court
Garden Silk Mills Ltd
|
Refund claim after removing all deficiencies rejected only on the ground
that the fresh application was not filed is unsustainable |
|
2018(06)LCX0057
Delhi High Court
Bharti Airtel Ltd. |
|
|
2018(06)LCX0056
Gujarat High Court
Gujarat Chamber of Commerce and Industry
|
Difficulties faced in receiving refunds of
the GST upon export even in absence of any error or mismatch in the
dealer's application for the refund and the accompanying documents |
|
2018(09)LCX0030
Gujarat High Court
Siddharth Ganpatraj Chowdhury
|
Challenge that Rule 89(5) of the CGST
Rules, 2017 as amended to the extent it denies grant of refund of
unutilized tax credit in respect of tax paid on input services is ultra
vires to the Constitution of India and provisions of the CGST Act, 2017
has been stayed |
|
2018(10)LCX0036
Bombay High Court
Star Rays |
Modifications to be carried out in GSTR-1 &
3B for claiming refund of export stuck due to technical difficulties |
|
2018(09)LCX0012
Kerala high Court
Green Natural Extracts Pvt. Ltd
|
Nodal Officer will facilitate uploading
FORM GST TRAN-1, without reference to the time-frame which was not filed
earlier due to technical glitches |
