TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>GST Refund Claim Reinstated: Tax Authority Must Reassess Calculation of Adjusted Total Turnover Under Rule 89(4)</h1> <h3>Tvl. Mallow International, represented by its Managing Partner, R. Anand Versus The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, The Assistant Commissioner (ST)</h3> Tvl. Mallow International, represented by its Managing Partner, R. Anand Versus The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, The Assistant Commissioner (ST) - TMI Issues:The judgment involves a writ petition for a Certiorarified Mandamus regarding the refund sanction/rejection order, interpretation of Rule 89(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, and the impact of Circular No.197/09/2023-GST on the refund claim.Interpretation of Rule 89(4) of CGST Rules:The petitioner sought a refund on exports made, citing a clarification issued by the Principal Commissioner (GST) in Circular No.197/09/2023-GST regarding the calculation of 'adjusted total turnover' under sub-rule (4) of Rule 89 of CGST Rules. The clarification highlighted the importance of considering the value of goods exported out of India for calculating the 'adjusted total turnover.' The petitioner argued that a similar refund had been allowed for a subsequent period based on this clarification.Contention of the Respondents:The Government Advocate for the respondents countered the petitioner's argument by referring to Rule 89(4) of the CGST Rules and Notification No.14/2022, which inserted an explanation in the rules. The respondents maintained that there was no merit in the petitioner's challenge based on the new explanation.Judgment and Remand:The court, after considering the submissions, decided to set aside the impugned order and remit the case back to the second respondent for fresh consideration. The court directed the second respondent to re-examine the issue in light of the Circular No.197/09/2023-GST and the clarification provided in paragraph 3 of the circular. The second respondent was instructed to pass orders afresh within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the order. As a result, the writ petition was allowed with no costs imposed.
TaxTMI 