SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 23824

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr.Justice C.SARAVANAN
M/S. ABI TECHNOLOGIES – Appellant
Versus
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER O – Respondent


ORDER

The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a Mandamus to direct the respondent to sanction a sum of Rs.24,72,018/- as refund on the exports made by the petitioner during July, 2017, September, 2017 and October, 2017. 2.It is the specific case of the petitioner that though the petitioner had correctly declared the details in the monthly returns in Form GSTR-1 regarding the exports made by the petitioner on payment of tax by debiting the input tax credit, a mistake was committed by the petitioner in GSTR-3B under Rule 61(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the outward supplies ie., exports would have qualified as a zero rated supply and therefore, the petitioner should have filled the details in Form GSTR-3B in column 3.1 (b). Instead, the petitioner by mistake has given the details of the export as outward taxable supply (other than zero rated, nil rated and exempted).

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that similar mistake was made by the petitioner for all the three months, as a result of which though the petitioner has exported goods on payment of tax, the refund of integrated tax on exports under the pr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top