https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406544 The appeal challenging the restriction of refund to only inputs under the Inverted Duty Structure was dismissed as the appellant withdrew the appeal citing cash flow constraints. The judgment clarified that for refund purposes, inputs do not include services or capital goods as defined in the CGST Act, 2017. Despite arguments on the interpretation of Section 54(3) and Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the appeal was ultimately dismissed following the appellant's withdrawal. The Additional Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the withdrawal, emphasizing the distinction between inputs, services, and capital goods for claiming unutilized Input Tax Credit. en-us Thu, 11 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406544 The appeal challenging the restriction of refund to only inputs under the Inverted Duty Structure was dismissed as the appellant withdrew the appeal citing cash flow constraints. The judgment clarified that for refund purposes, inputs do not include services or capital goods as defined in the CGST Act, 2017. Despite arguments on the interpretation of Section 54(3) and Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the appeal was ultimately dismissed following the appellant's withdrawal. The Additional Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the withdrawal, emphasizing the distinction between inputs, services, and capital goods for claiming unutilized Input Tax Credit. Case-Laws GST Thu, 11 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406544