Prospective operation of fiscal notification preserved accrued refund rights; PIL jurisdiction could not be used for an individual tax dispute.

A delegated fiscal notification restricting refund of accumulated input tax credit of compensation cess was held to operate prospectively because it created a new disability and no clear retrospective intent was shown. Accrued refund rights earned before 30.09.2019 could not be taken away by implication, so the notification could not deny refund of credit already crystallized. The writ petition, though styled as a public interest litigation, was found to concern individual refund disputes rather than genuine public interest, and PIL jurisdiction was treated as inappropriate for such a tax challenge.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Notification No. 3/2019-Compensation Cess (Rate) dated 30.09.2019 operated retrospectively so as to deny refund of accumulated input tax credit of compensation cess already earned before its issuance; (ii) whether the writ petition styled as a public interest litigation was maintainable.

Issue (i): Whether Notification No. 3/2019-Compensation Cess (Rate) dated 30.09.2019 operated retrospectively so as to deny refund of accumulated input tax credit of compensation cess already earned before its issuance?

Analysis: Refund under section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is governed by the statutory scheme permitting refund of unutilized input tax credit where the conditions of the proviso are not attracted. The notification of 30.09.2019 imposed a new disability by restricting refund for specified goods, and no express retrospective operation was shown. Applying the presumption against retrospectivity, accrued rights to accumulated credit already earned before the notification could not be taken away by implication.

Conclusion: The notification was prospective and could not be applied retrospectively to deny refund of accumulated credit earned before 30.09.2019.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition styled as a public interest litigation was maintainable?

Analysis: The reliefs sought concerned individual refund orders and a challenge to action relating to specific assessees. The pleadings and surrounding circumstances did not disclose a genuine public interest, and the maintainability of invoking PIL jurisdiction in such a dispute was doubted. The petition was treated as an abuse of the PIL jurisdiction and not as a proper matter for public interest adjudication.

Conclusion: The writ petition in the nature of a public interest litigation was not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the refund orders did not survive PIL scrutiny, and the notification could not be used to unsettle refunds already crystallized before its commencement.

Ratio Decidendi: A delegated fiscal notification that creates a new disability or restricts an accrued refund entitlement operates prospectively in the absence of clear retrospective intent, and PIL jurisdiction cannot be used to litigate an essentially individual tax dispute.

---