Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
G. S. Kulkarni, Aarti Sathe, JJ
CHEC-TPL Line 4 Joint Venture – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenges rejection of inverted structure gst refunds. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. itc accumulates from higher input tax rates. (Para 3) |
| 3. sc upholds rule 89(5), excludes input services. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. resubmitted refunds rejected despite notification 14/2022. (Para 6) |
| 5. petitioner urges retrospective notification 14/2022 application. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 6. gst council amends formula per sc urging. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 7. rule 89(5) includes input services in refund formula. (Para 11) |
| 8. amendment clarificatory, retrospective for timely claims. (Para 12) |
| 9. gujarat hc rulings affirmed by sc dismissals. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 10. court quashes orders, grants inverted structure refund. (Para 16 , 17) |
ORAL JUDGMENT – (Per : G.S.Kulkarni, J.) :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.
2. The Petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is aggrieved by the rejection of refund claims for the accumulated tax credit due to inverted tax structure concurrently by the Original Authority as also in appeal by the Appellate Authority. The substantive prayers as made in the petition are required to be noted, which read thus :
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
