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>Landmark GST Refund Ruling: Challenging Inverted Duty Structure Rejection Under Circular No.135/05/2020-GST Overturned</h1> <h3>M/s. Eveready Spinning Mills Private Limited, Represented by its Joint Managing Director S. Chandrakumar. Versus The Assistant Commissioner, O/o. the Assistant Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, Dindigul</h3> M/s. Eveready Spinning Mills Private Limited, Represented by its Joint Managing Director S. Chandrakumar. Versus The Assistant Commissioner, O/o. the ... Issues:1. Rejection of GST refund claim under Inverted Duty Structure based on Circular No.135/05/2020-GST.2. Applicability of Circular despite being struck down by other High Courts.3. Contrary stand taken by the Department regarding refund claim.4. Previous orders issued for refund application periods.Analysis:1. The petitioner, a manufacturer of cotton yarn, filed a refund claim under Section 54(3) of GST enactments due to an Inverted Duty Structure. The claim was rejected by the respondent citing Circular No.135/05/2020-GST, which states that refund is not applicable when input and output supplies are the same.2. The respondent rejected the claim as the rate of tax on input raw cotton (used in production) and output goods (100% Cotton yarn) was the same. The Circular was applied despite being struck down by High Courts in Gauhati, Calcutta, Rajasthan, and Delhi. The decisions against the Circular have not been reversed.3. The High Court emphasized that the Department cannot take a different stand on the Circular's applicability, as GST laws apply uniformly across India. Refunds were previously sanctioned to the petitioner for different periods, indicating inconsistency in the Department's approach towards refund claims.4. Considering the previous sanctioned refund orders, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondent to reevaluate the refund claim within three months. The Writ Petition was allowed with directions, and no costs were imposed. The case was remitted back to the respondent for a fresh order based on the previous refund orders issued to the petitioner.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
