Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Bhargav D.Karia, Pranav Trivedi
Kush Proteins Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PRANAV TRIVEDI, J.
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Nirav Shah for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr. Ankit Shah for the respondents.
2. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Ankit Shah waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondents.
3. Having regard to the controversy involved in this petition, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.
4. Present petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails the correctness and validity of order dated 29.2.2024 as well as order dated 31.3.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax and Excise, Division-VIII (Anand), Vadodara-1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondent’ for short) wherein the respondent was pleased to reject the refund application preferred by the petitioners under Section 54 of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CGST’ for short.
5. The facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as under:
5.1 The petitioners are in business of manufacturing and trading of edible oil, cattle feed, palmolein oil, mustard oil, etc.
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....
The court affirmed that the right to claim Input Tax Credit refunds is unambiguous and cannot be restricted arbitrarily by circulars or notifications that infringe upon statutory rights.
Input tax credits accrued before the effective date of a notification can be claimed despite subsequent restrictions, as clarified by the court.
The court established that the limitation period for refund applications under the CGST Act is determined by the original filing date, not subsequent deficiencies.
The court established that the extension of the limitation period for GST refund applications due to COVID-19 applies retroactively to claims made during that period.
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.
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....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
