IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, D.N. RAY, JJ.
ASCENT MEDITECH LTD. – Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 18317 of 2023
Decided On : 17-10-2024
JUDGMENT :
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Uchit Sheth for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Hirak Shah and C.B. Gupta for the respondents in the respective petitions.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocates for the respective respondents waive service of notice of rule.
3. Having regard to the controversy in narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.
4. The petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 24.08.2023 rejecting the refund application of the petitioner on the basis of the circular dated 10.11.2022. The petitioner has therefore, also challenged the said circular.
5. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing orthopedic soft goods for upper extremity, lower extremity and spine as well as mobility assistive devices for home and hotel use.
6. The applicable rate of tax on output supplies of the products manufactured by the petitioner is 5% as its majority of goods are classifiable under HSN90211000 whereas, the applicable rate of tax on main inputs used by the petitioner to manufacture its product ranges from 12% to 18%.
7. The petitioner also availed input services which attracted GST rate of 18%. The petitioner had utilized input tax credit on account of such facts as the rate of tax on the input being more than the rate of tax on the output supply.
8. The petitioner therefore made an application under section 54(3) of the GST Act to get the refund of unutilized input tax credit as per the formula prescribed in Rule 89(5) of the Central/Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (for short ‘the Rules’).
9. The petitioner was granted refund computed as per the formula under the inverted duty structure for all the applications made prior to 05.07.2022 on the ground that prior to 05.07.2022, by unamended formula, the petitioner was not entitled to include the input services as part of the formula and as the petitioner has made the refund application prior to 05.07.2022, as per the Notification No. 14/2022 dated 05.07.2022 read with Circular dated 10.11.2022, the petitioner was not entitled to the refund as per the amended formula.
10. It is the case of the petitioner that the formula for calculating the refund under Rule 89(5) of the GST Rules was challenged before different High Courts on the ground that it was ultra vires to section 54(3) of the GST Act and as the refund in respect of unutilized input tax credit attributable to input services was not being granted and, in the alternative, it was urged that the formula was defective as the entire input tax credit pertaining to inputs was first adjusted towards output tax liability for computing refund under Rule 89(5) of the GST Rules.
11. It would be germane to refer to the amended and unamended Rule 89(5).
Unamended rules prior to 05.07.2022 was as under:
Maximum Refund Amount = [(Turnover of inverted rated supply of goods and services) x Net ITC+ Adjusted Total Turnover] - tax payable on such inverted rated supply of goods and services.
Explanation: For the purposes of this sub-rule, the expressions:
(a) “Net ITC” shall mean input tax credit availed on inputs during the relevant period other than the input tax credit availed for which refund is claimed under sub-rules (4A) or (4B) or both.
(b) “Adjusted Total turnover” and “relevant period” shall have the same meaning as assigned to them in sub-rule (4).”
Amended Rule read as under:
Rule 89. Application for refund of tax, interest, penalty, fees or any other amount:
(5) In the case of refund on account of inverted duty structure, refund of input tax credit shall be granted as per the following formula:
Maximum Refund Amount = [(Turnover of inverted rated supply of goods and services) x Net ITC Adjusted Total Turnover] - 21[tax payable on such inverted rated sup
Allied Motors (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2010) 1 SCC 489
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sri Jagannath Steel Corporation
Jamshedpur Motor Accessories Stores v. union of India and Ors. (1991) 189 ITR 70
The amendment to Rule 89(5) of the GST Rules is curative and clarificatory, applicable retrospectively to refund applications filed within two years under Section 54(1) of the GST Act.
Amendment to Rule 89(5) CGST Rules via Notification 14/2022 is clarificatory/curative, applying retrospectively to pre-notification refund claims of unutilized ITC due to inverted tax structure if fi....
The main legal point established is that the statutory scheme of refund under Section 54(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 applies to cases of accumulation of unutilised input tax credit due to an inverted du....
The restrictions on refund of accumulated input tax credit under Notification No. 9/2022 apply prospectively only, allowing claims for periods prior to the notification while filed within the statuto....
Petitioners entitled to refund of unutilized input tax credit as exporters, while Circular No. 172/04/2022 restricting such claims based on deemed exports deemed inapplicable.
Taxpayers are eligible for refunds of accumulated input tax credit even when input and output supplies are identical, as clarified through legislative amendments.
Input tax credits accrued before the effective date of a notification can be claimed despite subsequent restrictions, as clarified by the court.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.