https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401557 The appellant's claims for refund under the CGST Act due to an inverted duty structure were rejected as the goods supplied did not qualify as "inputs" under Section 2(59) of the Act. The adjudicating authority emphasized that the goods were supplied directly without further processing, leading to an accumulation of ITC. The appellant's arguments regarding trading activities and eligibility for refunds were also dismissed, with the authority holding that the goods did not meet the criteria for refund under the Act. The appeals were rejected, and the original order was upheld. en-us Fri, 13 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Mar 2025 17:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401557 The appellant's claims for refund under the CGST Act due to an inverted duty structure were rejected as the goods supplied did not qualify as "inputs" under Section 2(59) of the Act. The adjudicating authority emphasized that the goods were supplied directly without further processing, leading to an accumulation of ITC. The appellant's arguments regarding trading activities and eligibility for refunds were also dismissed, with the authority holding that the goods did not meet the criteria for refund under the Act. The appeals were rejected, and the original order was upheld. Case-Laws GST Fri, 13 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401557