Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI Search — Coming Soon!

AI-powered research trained on the authentic TaxTMI database.

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        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>Cash refund claim for pre-GST CENVAT credit not carried forward in TRAN-1, despite ST-3 classification mismatch, allowed</h1> Section 142(9)(b) CGST Act was interpreted to permit an assessee to seek cash refund of eligible pre-GST CENVAT credit even if it was not carried forward ... Entitlement for cash refund in view of Section 142(9)(b) of CGST Act - appellant had not carried forward the balance amount in TRANS-1 filed by them - figure mentioned in ST-3 Return and the relevant supporting documents did not match with each other - HELD THAT:- No objection can be taken on the ground that the appellant had not carried forward the amount of Rs.2,61,188/- in TRANS–I though the same has been shown as outstanding balance in ST-3 Return. In the case of the appellant decided by the Bangalore Bench vide Final Order dated 07.07.2021 [2021 (7) TMI 326 - CESTAT BANGALORE], the learned Member observed that if two options are available, the assessee may choose, which is more beneficial for them and, therefore, did not find any error where the appellant did not choose to carry forward the credit in TRANS-1 and preferred to claim cash refund as provided under Section 142(9)(b) of the Act. Discrepancy pointed out by the Department with reference to the supporting documents submitted by the appellant as against the ST-3 return - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted position that in the ST–3 Return, the CENVAT Credit accrued on account of inputs even in the revised returns filed on 19.09.2017, the supporting documents relates to credit of service tax paid on audit fee/input service. In the earlier case of the appellant disposed of vide Final Order dated 07.07.2021, it was noticed that the appellant had failed to furnish the original invoices which are necessary for verification of the claim of refund and, therefore, for the purpose of verification of the documents, the case was remanded back to the Original Authority. Thus, what emerges is that the appellant is required to substantiate the refund claim by submitting the requisite and correct documents - Tribunal agree with the Adjudicating Authority that the supporting documents were incompatible with the information mentioned in ST–3 Return, which were found to be mismatched. However, considering the fact that the appellant had the balance of Rs.2,61,589/- in their Cenvat Credit Account but by mistake had mentioned as towards ‘input’ in the ST-3 Returns though in the documents, it has been reflected as towards ‘input service’. The fact remains that the appellant had availed the cenvat credit and was therefore, entitle to claim the refund thereof. The error is not really very serious affecting the merits of the entitlement. Moreover, the appellant is a nationalized Bank and no malafides can be attributed except there has been some negligence on the part of some officer. The Authorities below have erred in denying the benefit to the appellant. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the appellant was entitled to cash refund of the differential CENVAT credit under Section 142(9)(b) of the CGST Act upon filing a revised return after the appointed day showing an increased closing balance as compared to the original return. 2. Whether the refund could be denied on the ground that the appellant did not carry forward the disputed credit through TRAN-1 despite reflecting it as closing balance in the revised return. 3. Whether the refund was liable to be rejected due to mismatch/incompatibility between (i) the nature of credit stated in the ST-3 return (inputs) and (ii) the supporting documents produced (input services), and whether such discrepancy defeated the appellant's entitlement on merits. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Entitlement to cash refund of differential CENVAT credit under Section 142(9)(b) of the CGST Act Legal framework: The Court applied Section 142(9)(b) of the CGST Act as discussed in the judgment, treating it as providing for cash refund where a return under the existing law is revised after the appointed day (within permissible time), and the revised return results in an increased closing balance of CENVAT credit compared to the original return. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court found that, on merits, the issue stood concluded that the appellant is entitled to cash refund when the revised return increases the closing balance vis-à-vis the original return, and the differential amount is refundable in cash in terms of Section 142(9)(b). Conclusion: The Court held that the appellant was entitled to cash refund of the differential amount arising from the increase in closing balance shown through revision of the return, and the refund claim could not be rejected on the merits of entitlement under Section 142(9)(b). Issue 2: Effect of not carrying forward the credit in TRAN-1 Legal framework: The Court considered the objection that the appellant had not carried forward the relevant amount through TRAN-1 despite reflecting credit in the ST-3 return. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that no objection could be sustained merely because the appellant did not carry forward the credit in TRAN-1. It accepted the reasoning (as applied in the judgment) that where two routes are available, the assessee may choose the more beneficial option, and choosing cash refund under Section 142(9)(b) instead of transition through TRAN-1 was not erroneous. Conclusion: Non-carry-forward of the amount in TRAN-1 did not disentitle the appellant to claim cash refund under Section 142(9)(b). Issue 3: Mismatch between ST-3 description (inputs) and supporting documents (input services) and its impact on refund Legal framework: The Court examined the Department's discrepancy regarding mismatch between the ST-3 return entries and the supporting documents produced for the refund claim. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted that there was an admitted mismatch: the ST-3 return reflected credit accrued on 'inputs', while the supporting documents related to service tax paid on audit fee/input service. The Court also agreed with the adjudicating authority that the supporting documents were incompatible with the ST-3 return and were 'mismatched'. However, the Court treated the discrepancy as an erroneous description in the return rather than a defect destroying entitlement, because the record showed the credit amount was linked to audit fees and the appellant had in fact availed the CENVAT credit. The Court further reasoned that the error was not serious enough to affect the merits of entitlement, and attributed no mala fides, viewing it as negligence rather than intentional wrongdoing. Conclusion: The Court held that despite the mismatch, the appellant remained entitled to the refund because the credit had been availed and the discrepancy did not go to the root of eligibility. The authorities erred in denying the benefit solely on this basis; the impugned order was set aside and consequential relief granted.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found