Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
The High Court held that Section 17(2) of the CGST Act is not ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution to the extent it restricts refund under the inverted duty structure. The petitioner does not have a vested right to claim refund of accumulated Input Tax Credit on goods and services due to the inverted duty structure under the first proviso to Section 54(3) of the CGST Act. The restrictions imposed on the petitioner on availing credits used for exempted services u/s 17(2) and claiming refund of taxes on inputs and input services under the first proviso to Section 54(3) are valid. The right to avail Input Tax Credit and the benefit of taxes paid on inputs and input services does not extend to exempted supplies. The petitioner, providing education services, falls under the category of fully exempt supply and is not entitled to Input Tax Credit refund. The legislature has rightly excluded supplies with Nil or exempted rate from the refund provision for the inverted rate structure u/s 54(3). As there is no constitutional or statutory entitlement to refund, the petitioner's claim for refund of ITC on exempt output services cannot be accepted. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition.
The High Court held that Section 17(2) of the CGST Act is not ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution to the extent it restricts refund under the inverted duty structure. The petitioner does not have a vested right to claim refund of accumulated Input Tax Credit on goods and services due to the inverted duty structure under the first proviso to Section 54(3) of the CGST Act. The restrictions imposed on the petitioner on availing credits used for exempted services u/s 17(2) and claiming refund of taxes on inputs and input services under the first proviso to Section 54(3) are valid. The right to avail Input Tax Credit and the benefit of taxes paid on inputs and input services does not extend to exempted supplies. The petitioner, providing education services, falls under the category of fully exempt supply and is not entitled to Input Tax Credit refund. The legislature has rightly excluded supplies with Nil or exempted rate from the refund provision for the inverted rate structure u/s 54(3). As there is no constitutional or statutory entitlement to refund, the petitioner's claim for refund of ITC on exempt output services cannot be accepted. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
