We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:
1. Basic • Quick overview summary answering your query with references• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
2. Advanced • Includes everything in Basic • Detailed report covering: - Overview Summary - Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars] - Relevant Case Laws - Tariff / Classification / HSN - Expert views from TaxTMI - Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy
• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
<h1>Tax Refund Petition Reinstated: Procedural Amendment Enables Fresh Application Under CGST Rule 89(5) for Comprehensive Resolution</h1> RHC allowed a tax refund petition under CGST Act, directing the petitioner to file a fresh refund application within the retrospectively amended Rule ... Rejection of refund of inputs on account of inverted rate of duty structure - Scope of the term ‘Services’ in the formula for refund - HELD THAT:- The instant petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner-Firm to move a fresh application seeking refund in the spectrum of service, which is covered by the amendment in law. Such application shall be decided by the respondents strictly in accordance with the retrospective amendment made in the Rule 89 Sub-Rule (5) of CGST Rules, 2017 and also in accordance with the other laws applicable. Accordingly, the respondents shall be required to operate the GST portal. The Rajasthan High Court, comprising Hon'ble Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Munnuri Laxman, addressed a civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought relief for a refund of tax collected and an injunction against further action based on a notice.The petitioner argued that under Section 54(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), they were entitled to a refund due to an inverted rate of duty structure. However, their refund application was initially rejected. The petitioner highlighted an amendment to Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017, via Notification No. 26/2018, which retrospectively included 'Services' in the refund formula, effective from July 1, 2017. This amendment justified a fresh application for refund consideration.Counsel for the respondents acknowledged the correctness of the initial dismissal but conceded that the retrospective amendment warranted a fresh application under the amended rule. The court granted the petitioner the liberty to file a new refund application, which must be adjudicated per the retrospective amendment and applicable laws. The GST portal will be operated to facilitate this process, which must be completed within three months from the receipt of the court's order.
TaxTMI 
• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
